Editorial: Changing peer review practices: transforming roles and future challenges

Biagioli M. From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences J Study Media Compos Cult 2002; 12(1): 11-45. doi: 10.1080/1045722022000003435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1045722022000003435

Csiszar A. Peer review: troubled from the start. Nature 2016; 532: 306-8. doi: 10.1038/532306a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a

Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006; 99(4): 178-82. doi: 10.1177/014107680609900414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900414

Fyfe A, Gielas A. Introduction: Editorship and the editing of scientific journals, 1750–1950. Centaurus 2020; 62(1): 5-20. doi: 10.1111/1600-0498.12290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12290

Horbach S P J M, Halffman W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2018; 3(1): 8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5

Csiszar A. The scientific journal: authorship and the politics of knowledge in the nineteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2018. ISBN 9780226752501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226553375.001.0001

Baldwin M. Credibility, peer review, and nature, 1945–1990. Notes Rec R Soc J Hist Sci 2015; 69(3): 337-52. doi: 10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0029

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad M H. Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin Proc 2019; 94(4) :670-6. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004

Lee C J, Sugimoto C R, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2013; 64(1): 2-17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784

Peters D P, Ceci S J. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982; 5(2): 187-95. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00011183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183

Pontille D, Torny D. The blind shall see! The question of anonymity in journal peer review. Ada J Gend New Media Technol 2014; 4. doi: 10.7264/N3542KVW.

Ross-Hellauer T, Horbach S P J M. Additional experiments required: a scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Res Eval 2024; 33: rvae004. doi: 10.31222/osf.io/r6t8p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004

Tennant J P, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2020; 5(1): 6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1

Hesselmann F. A Tale of two academic communities: digital imaginaries of automatic screening tools in editorial practice. Minerva [Internet] 2023; 61: 221-41. doi: 10.1007/s11024-022-09484-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09484-7

Epskamp S, Nuijten M. statcheck: Extract statistics from articles and recompute p values (R package version 1.0. 0.). 2014. https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/statcheck-extract-statistics-from-articles-and-recompute-p-values DOI: https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.statcheck

Hesselmann F, Hartstein J. Creating interpretative spaces in and with digital infrastructures: how editors select reviewers at a biomedical publisher. Sci Technol Hum Values 2025; 50(1): 12-39. doi: 10.1177/0162243924125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241257720

Naddaf M. AI is transforming peer review—and many scientists are worried. Nature 2025; 639(8056): 852-4. doi: 10.1038/d41586-025-00894-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00894-7

Bauchner H, Rivara F P. Use of artificial intelligence and the future of peer review. Health Aff Sch 2024; 2(5): qxae058. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxae058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae058

Hosseini M, Horbach S P J M. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 2023; 8(1): 4. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5

Irfanullah H. Peer review has lost its human face. So, what’s next? [Internet]. Scholarly Kitchen 2025 [cited 2025 Apr 15]. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/04/09/peer-review-has-lost-its-human-face-so-whats-next/

Horbach S P J M, Ochsner M, Kaltenbrunner W. Reflections on guest editing a Frontiers journal [Internet]. Leiden Madtrics 2022. Available from: https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/reflections-on-guest-editing-a-frontiers-journal DOI: https://doi.org/10.59350/kbccp-fcp39

Chauhan C, Currie G. The impact of generative artificial intelligence on the external review of scientific manuscripts and editorial peer review processes. Am J Pathol 2024; 194(10): 1802-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2024.08.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2024.08.002

Wang J, Halffman W, Horbach S P J M. The journal attention cycle: indicators as assets in the Chinese scientific publishing economy. Sci Technol Hum Values 2025; 01622439251322530. doi: 10.31222/osf.io/6uvpz. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439251322530

Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS One 2015; 10(6): e0127502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Felländer-Tsai L, Overgaard S. Adapting to the rapidly moving target artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 625. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.34900. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.34900