L’articolo di Dmitry Kochetkov pubblicato come Preprint in SocArxiv affronta il tema della peer review che in questi ultimi tempi sembra mostrare molti elementi critici e di debolezza.

It is traditionally believed that peer review is the backbone of an academic journal and scientific communication, ensuring high quality and trust in the published materials. However, peer review only became an institutionalized practice in the second half of the 20th century, although the first scientific journals appeared three centuries earlier. By the beginning of the 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the traditional model of peer review is in deep crisis. The aim of this article is to formulate a perspective model of peer review for scientific communication. The article discusses the evolution of the institution of scientific peer review and the formation of the current crisis. The author analyzed the modern landscape of innovations in peer review and scientific communication. Based on this analysis, three main peer review models in relation to editorial workflow were identified: pre-publication peer review (traditional model), registered reports, and post-publication (peer)review (including preprints(peer) review). The author argues that the third model offers the best way to implement the main functions of scientific communication.

L’autore individua tre modelli di peer review: quello tradizionale, un modello che chiama registered reports e che vede una costruzione della pubblicazione modulare, a partire dalla discussione del metodo, e il modello conosciuto come Publish-Review-Curate. Quest’ultimo modello, adottato ad esempio da ORE, da PCI o da eLife sembra essere quello che meglio mette in pratica le tradizionali funzioni della comunicazione scientifica.