Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction The Peer Review Innovations workshop at this year's Researcher to Reader Conference in London brought together 30 colleagues from various facets of scholarly communications, including publishers, institutional librarians, open research advocates, consultants, and service providers. In keeping with the overall ethos of this popular annual industry event, our collective goal was to share insights from across the scholarly community and to explore possible innovative ideas that could help improve peer review for all stakeholders engaged in this process. Setting the Scene Before discussing ideas to improve peer review, the workshop agreed on the parameters for our discussions, defining peer review as the timeframe between the submission of research to a journal or other platform for publication, and the editorial decision by that journal or platform to publish the work. Whilst not a perfect or all-encompassing definition, this was intended to give a workable frame of reference to the workshop participants for the three 1-hour sessions during the 2 days of the conference. We also discussed the current state of peer review, asking the participants to vote for 1 of 4 options. The vast majority of the group (93%) felt that peer review is in need of major improvements to meet the needs of its various stakeholders (Figure 1). Noone in the group felt that peer review in its current state is working well most of the time—perhaps unsurprising in a workshop dedicated to discussing peer review innovations! This exercise not only illustrated the participants were aligned in their perception …
Alves et al. (Sun,) studied this question.