What role does peer review play in science journalism?
| 22 January, 2024 | Kathryn Beechey |
Science journalism, and science communication more widely, are central to disseminating the latest research to policymakers, practitioners, the public, and other stakeholders. However, it’s vital that the research being communicated is sound and reliable to avoid misinformation and mistrust of research. Peer review can be key in ensuring high-quality science journalism – we explore this in our blog.
A changing publishing landscape
Over recent years, scholarly publishing has undergone significant changes. This includes the peer review process, which has evolved substantially over the past few years after being largely static since its origin.
Traditionally, peer review processes can take several months, or even years, to complete, posing problems for time-sensitive research. In some cases, findings can become obsolete in the time it takes for research to be published.
Additionally, peer review is conventionally fully closed, with all discussions happening behind the editorial curtain. This could result in overly negative feedback, the capacity for bias, and more.
However, a move towards open science principles worldwide has led to alternative publishing and peer review models. This includes preprint servers, post-publication peer review, and open peer review models. The latter two of which underpin Gates Open Research’s own peer review process.
This move towards openness was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic when research needed to be published as soon as possible. To help accelerate discoveries in a rapidly moving global health situation, and preprint servers, in particular, became increasingly prominent.
Yet, while preprint servers provided a valuable option for quickly publishing research, they also raised questions. Predominantly about the validity and quality of research without a formal peer review process. As well as implications for science journalists when reporting science from preprint servers.
This new way of publishing raised questions among journalists and other stakeholders. How can we assess research quality without the litmus test of traditional peer review? What alternatives are there for assessing quality while maintaining speed of publication?
How new peer review models can help journalists report research
Without a doubt, it’s crucial for science journalists to communicate research that is considered sound by the academic community. While research shifts from traditional peer review, various models still assist journalists in effectively reporting research.
Open peer review in science journalism
Open peer review models are rapidly becoming more common in scholarly publishing, including at Gates Open Research. The level of openness can differ, from partially open (such as open reports but anonymous reviewers) to fully open (where reviewer reports, reviewer names, and author responses are all publicly available).
These fully open models can play a key role in helping journalists and other stakeholders to communicate research effectively.
Being able to see all the peer review comments, as well as the author responses, helps to provide a deeper insight into the article and peer review evaluations. This includes any potential limitations or uncertainties, which can then be communicated as part of the reporting to give readers the full picture.
Communicating research uncertainties is a key part of scientific communication. We live in a world of uncertainty where all science can have its limitations. Making the public and other stakeholders aware of this helps to avoid misinformation.
Additionally, publicly available reviewer names allow journalists to identify expert contacts to discuss the research further, and multiple reviewer contacts help validate different viewpoints to cover the breadth of scientific opinion.
Post-publication peer review in science journalism
Post-publication peer review is a model in which papers are published by a journal first. Afterwards, the paper undergoes formal, invited peer review in line with traditional models.
When editors conduct thorough pre-publication checks, as with Gates Open Research, this model balances quicker publishing with research quality. This helps to maintain rapid reporting of the latest reporting while ensuring robust interrogation of the results.
Again, it’s vital for science journalists to report any limitations of research, including when articles are still subject to peer review.
Preprints
preprints have raised concerns over research quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are ways to use preprint servers responsibly in science reporting, especially as they become more embedded in the academic community. In fact, studies have shown that many preprint papers go on to be accepted in journals with relatively few changes.
Preprints, wherein researchers openly upload a paper that is yet to be published via a traditional journal and/or be subject to peer review, again support rapid publishing of research, with authors themselves responsible for uploading the paper to the server.
Additionally, preprint servers support open commenting by the wider research community, including experts in the research area. As a result, while there is no formal peer review process, this community response and organic ‘peer review’ can still provide journalists with an indication of research quality, when researched in-depth by journalists.
And, as these comments are open, journalists can contact commenters in the same way as peer reviewers for further discussion and validation.
It’s true that there is some concern over the role of preprints in the scholarly publishing landscape. However, we believe at Gates Open Research that it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. Preprint servers can play a key role in rapidly publishing research, getting initial feedback, and then submitting to an official journal for final publication of the paper, with the benefits that accompany official journal publication.
How can researchers help journalists report research?
Finally, it’s important to highlight that responsible science communication and reporting is the responsibility of all in the scientific community.
Science journalists and other stakeholders are not necessarily experts in the subject matter they report on or work within. As a result, they need support from researchers themselves to help them report research effectively and to make this research accessible.
Plain Language Summaries, Executive Summaries, and other materials can all help researchers to support science communication. Peer reviewers can also ensure their open peer review reports are accessible and clear.
Peer reviewing with Gates Open Research
If you’d like to be part of the change, you can find out more about open, post-publication peer review at Gates Open Research and express your interest in becoming a reviewer yourself.
If you’d like to benefit from this peer review approach for your own work, find out more about publishing your Gates-funded work with the platform.
COMMENTS