Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation

Aliaksandr Birukou, Joseph Rushton Wakeling, Claudio Bartolini, Fabio Casati, Maurizio Marchese, Katsiaryna Mirylenka, Nardine Osman, Azzurra Ragone, Carles Sierra, Aalam Wassef

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper we review several novel approaches for research evaluation. We start with a brief overview of the peer review, its controversies, and metrics for assessing efficiency and overall quality of the peer review. We then discuss five approaches, including reputationbased ones, that come out of the research carried out by the LiquidPub project and research groups collaborated with LiquidPub. Those approaches are alternative or complementary to traditional peer review. We discuss pros and cons of the proposed approaches and conclude with a vision for the future of the research evaluation, arguing that no single system can suit all stakeholders in various communities.

Original languageEnglish
Article number56
JournalFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience
Volume5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Dec 2011
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Bidding
  • LiquidPub
  • Metrics
  • Opinions
  • Peer review
  • Research evaluation
  • UCount

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience (miscellaneous)
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., Osman, N., Ragone, A., Sierra, C., & Wassef, A. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, [56]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056