The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence

Balazs Aczel¹, Ann-Sophie Barwich^{2

3}, Amanda B Diekman⁴, Ayelet Fishbach⁵, Robert L Goldstone^{3

4}, Pablo Gomez⁶, Odd Erik Gundersen^{7

8}, Paul T von Hippel⁹, Alex O Holcombe¹⁰, Stephan Lewandowsky^{11

12}, Nazbanou Nozari⁴, Franco Pestilli^{13

14}, John P A Ioannidis^{15

16

17

18}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Affective Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest 1063, Hungary.
² Department of History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405.
³ Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN47405.
⁴ Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405.
⁵ Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.
⁶ Psychology Department, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866.
⁷ Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim 7491, Norway.
⁸ Aneo AI Research, Trondheim 7031, Norway.
⁹ LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
¹⁰ School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.
¹¹ School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS81TU, United Kingdom.
¹² Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam 14469, Germany.
¹³ Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
¹⁴ Department of Neuroscience, College of Natural Sciences, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
¹⁵ Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
¹⁶ Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
¹⁷ Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
¹⁸ Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford, CA 94305.

PMID: 39869808
PMCID: PMC11804526
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401232121

The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence

Balazs Aczel et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025.

. 2025 Feb 4;122(5):e2401232121.

doi: 10.1073/pnas.2401232121. Epub 2025 Jan 27.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Affective Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest 1063, Hungary.
² Department of History and Philosophy of Science and Medicine, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405.
³ Cognitive Science Program, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN47405.
⁴ Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405.
⁵ Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637.
⁶ Psychology Department, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866.
⁷ Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim 7491, Norway.
⁸ Aneo AI Research, Trondheim 7031, Norway.
⁹ LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
¹⁰ School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006, Australia.
¹¹ School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol BS81TU, United Kingdom.
¹² Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam 14469, Germany.
¹³ Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
¹⁴ Department of Neuroscience, College of Natural Sciences, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
¹⁵ Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
¹⁶ Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
¹⁷ Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
¹⁸ Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford, CA 94305.

PMID: 39869808
PMCID: PMC11804526
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401232121

Abstract

What is wrong with the peer review system? Is peer review sustainable? Useful? What other models exist? These are central yet contentious questions in today's academic discourse. This perspective critically discusses alternative models and revisions to the peer review system. The authors highlight possible changes to the peer review system, with the goal of fostering further dialog among the main stakeholders, including producers and consumers of scientific research. Neither our list of identified issues with the peer review system nor our discussed resolutions are complete. A point of agreement is that fair assessment and efficient change would require more comprehensive and rigorous data on the various aspects of the peer review system.

Keywords: peer review crisis; publication system; scientific community.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests statement:The authors declare no competing interest.

References

1. Lee C. J., Sugimoto C. R., Zhang G., Cronin B., Bias in peer review. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64, 2–17 (2013).
1. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Daniel H.-D., The influence of the applicants’ gender on the modeling of a peer review process by using latent Markov models. Scientometrics 81, 407–411 (2009).
1. Bornmann L., Mutz R., Daniel H.-D., Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J. Informetr. 1, 226–238 (2007).
1. Campanario J. M., Acedo E., Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 734–743 (2007).
1. King E. B., Avery D. R., Hebl M. R., Cortina J. M., Systematic Subjectivity: How Subtle Biases Infect the Scholarship Review Process (Sage Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles, CA, 2018).

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Atypon
- PubMed Central

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence

Affiliations

The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

References

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources