Volume 12 - Issue 61
/ January 2023
7
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.61.01.0
How to Cite:
Rojas-Bahamón, M., & Arbeláez-Campillo, D. (2023). Transforming editorial and peer review processes for a digital age. Amazonia
Investiga, 12(61), 7-9. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.61.01.0
Editorial
Transforming editorial and peer review processes for a digital age
Written by:
Magda Julissa Rojas-Bahamón
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4882-1476
Ph.D. Education and environmeetal culture. Professor IE Jorge Eliecer Gaitán.
Investigation Group: Primmate - Recognized by Ministry of Science, Colombia.
Diego Felipe Arbeláez-Campillo
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9041-9563
CEO editorial Primmate SAS, Colombia.
Research Group: Languages, Representations and Education, Universidad de la Amazonia, Colombia.
We live in a world where information is
generated and disseminated at an unprecedented
pace, and science, as a key driver of human
progress, is not immune to this phenomenon. In
this context, it is crucial that the editorial and peer
review processes in scientific journals adapt to
ensure agile and efficient communication of
scientific advances. In this editorial, we will
discuss the need to modernize these processes
and propose possible solutions to accelerate the
dissemination of knowledge in our society.
The Current Situation
Currently, the review and publication process of
a scientific article can take months or even years
(Huisman & Smits, 2017). This delay in
communicating results can have a negative
impact on research and development, especially
in rapidly evolving fields such as biomedicine,
artificial intelligence, and environmental
sustainability (Gibson, 2019). Slowness in the
dissemination of knowledge can hinder scientific
progress and limit the community's ability to
address pressing global problems (Brembs et al.,
2013).
A historical example of a similar adaptation is the
development of scientific communication during
the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century.
Gutenberg's invention of movable type printing
allowed for rapid and massive distribution of
information, leading to an increase in the
production and dissemination of knowledge
(Eisenstein, 1980). In the same way, we must
adapt to the current digital age to ensure that
science remains a driver of progress and well-
being.
The Need for Change It is evident that the
editorial and peer review processes in scientific
journals need to be updated to meet the demands
of a constantly evolving world (Björk, 2015).
Researchers, institutions, and research funders
must come together to demand a more agile and
efficient approach that allows for rapid
dissemination of scientific results (Fyfe et al.,
2017). By doing so, not only will scientists’
benefit, but society as a whole will also be
ensured that knowledge is available in a timely
manner and used to address global challenges.
A clear example of the acceleration of scientific
processes occurred in 2020. In this year, the
COVID-19 pandemic generated an
unprecedented increase in the production and
dissemination of scientific literature. According
to data from the Web of Science database, by
December 2020, more than 100,000 articles
related to COVID-19 had been published (Zhou
& Chen, 2021). This rapid growth in scientific
literature was possible thanks to global
collaboration among researchers, the adoption of
open research approaches, and the streamlining
of review and publication processes (Horbach,
2020). The speed in the production and
dissemination of scientific information related to
COVID-19 allowed the scientific community and
decision-makers to quickly address the
challenges posed by the pandemic and develop
effective prevention, diagnosis, and treatment
strategies (Kupferschmidt & Cohen, 2020).
Proposed Solutions
Adopting faster and more transparent peer
review systems: By adopting an open peer review
8
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
approach, in which the names of reviewers and
authors are known to all parties (Ross-Hellauer,
2017), the quality and speed of reviews can be
improved, fostering accountability and
collaboration among researchers (Wicherts,
2016).
Reviewer Bank: Implementing a "reviewer bank"
can be an effective strategy for streamlining the
peer review process in scientific publishing. This
bank would consist of a database of experts in
various disciplines and fields of research who
would be willing to participate in manuscript
review and actively collaborate in assessing the
quality of research. A well-structured and
managed reviewer bank would allow scientific
journal editors to quickly identify the most
suitable and competent reviewers to evaluate a
specific manuscript, thereby reducing the time
required to find experts and accelerating the
overall review process. In addition, this reviewer
bank could offer training , resources, and
recognition to its members, incentivizing active
participation and ensuring quality and efficiency
in the peer review process.
Implementation of Artificial Intelligence:
Artificial intelligence and machine learning tools
can streamline editorial and peer review
processes by identifying relevant articles,
assigning suitable reviewers, and detecting
potential issues in publications (Callaway, 2020).
Incentives for reviewers: It is essential to
recognize the work of reviewers and offer
incentives for performing high-quality reviews
within shorter timeframes (Kovanis et al., 2016).
These incentives may include public recognition,
academic or professional credits, and access to
additional research resources (Squazzoni et al.,
2017).
Encouraging training and collaboration among
reviewers: Training in effective review
techniques and promoting collaboration among
reviewers can improve the quality and speed of
peer review (Pöschl, 2012). Additionally,
establishing collaboration networks among
researchers and experts in different fields
facilitates the review process and allows for a
more fluid exchange of knowledge (Stossel,
2006).
A current example of this process is the Publons
platform developed by Clarivate. This tool
contributes to the promotion of collaboration
among reviewers in the peer review sphere. By
allowing reviewers to maintain a public record of
their contributions and receive recognition for
their work, Publons fosters accountability,
knowledge sharing, and the formation of
networks among reviewers from different fields
and disciplines.
Performance metrics for scientific journals:
Implementing metrics that assess the speed and
efficiency of editorial and review processes can
motivate scientific journals to improve their
practices (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). These
metrics could also be used by researchers,
institutions, and funders to select suitable
journals for the publication of their work
(Wouters et al., 2015).
Modernizing the editorial and peer review
processes in scientific journals is a pressing
necessity in a constantly evolving world
(Horbach & Halffman, 2018). Adopting more
agile and efficient strategies can accelerate the
dissemination of scientific knowledge and boost
progress in various research areas (Peters et al.,
2016). It is crucial that the scientific community,
institutions, and research funders unite in this
effort to ensure that science remains a driver of
development and well-being for humanity
(Rennie et al., 2003).
Bibliographic references
Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the “mega-journals”
reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafo, M. (2013).
Deep impact: Unintended consequences of
journal rank. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7, 291.
Callaway, E. (2020). AI curates papers with a
little help from its human friends. Nature,
582(7811), 137–138.
Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S.,
Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C. M. (2017).
Untangling academic publishing: A history of
the relationship between commercial
interests, academic prestige
Horbach, S. P., & Halffman, W. (2018). The
changing forms and expectations of peer
review. Research Integrity and Peer Review,
3(1), 8.
Horbach, S. P. (2020). Pandemic publishing:
Medical journals drastically speed up their
publication process for COVID-19.
Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3),
1056-1067.
Kupferschmidt, K., & Cohen, J. (2020). Race to
find COVID-19 treatments accelerates.
Science, 367(6485), 1412-1413.
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal
coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A
comparative analysis. Scientometrics,
106(1), 213-228.
Volume 12 - Issue 61
/ January 2023
9
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Peters, D. P., Ceci, S. J., & Plotkin, J. B. (2016).
The future of empirical science: New tools
for a new age. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
39, e111.
Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review:
Scientific evaluation integrating the strengths
of traditional peer review with the virtues of
transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in
Computational Neuroscience, 6, 33.
Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Godlee, F. (2003).
The Future of Peer Review. BMJ, 327(7414),
564-567.
Stossel, T. P. (2006). The art of peer review. The
Scientist, 20(3), 12.
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Grimaldo, F. (2017).
Long- and short-term determinants of the
recall of scientific items: Insights from the
Web of Science and Scopus data sets. Journal
of Informetrics, 11(2), 356-365.
Voytiuk, T. (2022) The invasion of Russia put
more than three hundred million people at
risk of starvation – Borrell. Suspilne Media.
Wouters, P., Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V.,
McVeigh, M. E., Pulverer, B., de Rijcke, S.,
& Waltman, L. (2015). The Metric Tide:
Literature Review (Supplementary Report I
to the Independent Review of the Role of
Metrics in Research Assessment and
Management). Digital Science.
Zhou, P., & Chen, H. (2021). The swift increase
of COVID-19-related literature: Patterns,
themes, and the role of preprints. Quantitative
Science Studies, 2(1), 367-379.