Our Recent Productions

Showing 1–2 of 2

1. Working Paper2026Open Access

   The Future of Peer Review: A system-wide perspective(opens in a new tab)

   

   Pinfield, Stephen; Waltman, Ludo; Kolarz, Peter; Gregory, Kathleen; Brasil, André

   This report presents the main outcomes of the PEER REVIEW project conducted by the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) from 2023 to 2026. It draws on the substantial literature on peer review as well as 39 in-depth interviews with experts from across the research system, including policymakers, funders, publishers, editors, researchers and others. Peer review is often seen as one of the cornerstones of the research system. At the same time, many researchers and other actors in the system have expressed deep concerns about dysfunctions of peer review. In response to this, much work has been done to assess and improve peer review in individual domains, notably within research funding, scholarly publishing, career advancement, and assessment of research units.However, by considering peer review in each domain in isolation, knowledge about peer review has remained fragmented, offering a weak basis for strengthening the organisation of peer review.In this report, we take a systemic perspective on peer review across domains. Rather than focusing on incremental process-level innovations in individual domains, we conclude there is a need for system-wide reform in peer review. We outline future pathways for such reform.

   DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.32685351Peer reviewTechnical peer review
2. Working Paper2026Open Access

   Questioning peer review: Understanding peer review system-wide (RoRI Working Paper No. 21)(opens in a new tab)

   

   Gregory, Kathleen; Brasil, André; Kolarz, Peter; Pinfield, Stephen; Waltman, Ludo

   Peer review is omnipresent across the research system and is typically seen as a critical means of quality assurance and decision-making. However, there is a growing consensus that peer review is under strain, owing in large part to the proliferation of peer review demands in various parts of the research system. We argue that a holistic understanding of peer review across the research system is needed to move towards robust, complementary modes of evaluation that address these concerns. We draw on the findings from expert interviews to question the why (aims and purposes), who (actors), how (procedures and criteria), and what (objects) of peer review across “domains” where peer review is organised (research funding, scholarly publishing, career advancement, and research units). We then discuss the relationships between these domains, including the extent to which it may or may not be possible to combine reviewing efforts. We further identify five cross-domain themes through an inductive analysis: quality, capacity, diversity, openness, and trust. These themes interact with four contextual factors: disciplines, geographies, technology and governance. We argue that addressing these themes and their associated challenges in a holistic way is necessary to help peer review achieve its aims across the research system. In an associated project report, we draw on the understandings developed here to propose strategic pathways for working towards system-wide change.

   DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.32685546.v3Peer reviewTechnical peer review