摘要：This is the last editorial in the series addressing evolving models of peer review. Throughout the year, we have explored different ways in which peer review manifests—in journal articles, in research data, and in professional practice. It has generated conversations about peer review and its relevance in current scholarship and practice, both positive and critical. There have been conversations and comments about the “flaws of traditional peer review.” I hope that these are opportunities for dialogue and growth within the peer review process. Some of the concerns may be around the “traditional” models possibly perceived as driven by commercial publishers and anathema to open access. Or perhaps it is the opinion that peer review perpetuates an elitist framework around “quality.” Or it may be that the process is not transparent enough and thus, provokes skepticism. Each is a valid perspective. Hopefully, though, the conversation does not stop there.
Loading...
