Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
It is traditionally believed that peer review is the backbone of an academic journal and scientific communication, ensuring high quality and trust in the published materials. However, peer review only became an institutionalized practice in the second half of the 20th century, although the first scientific journals appeared three centuries earlier. By the beginning of the 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the traditional model of peer review is in deep crisis. This study aims to synthesize the key characteristics, practices, and outcomes of traditional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. The article discusses the evolution of the institution of scientific peer review and the formation of the current crisis. We analyze the modern landscape of innovations in peer review and scientific communication. Based on this analysis, three main peer review models in relation to editorial workflow are identified: pre-publication peer review (traditional model), registered reports, and post-publication (peer) review (including preprints (peer) review). We argue that the third model offers the best way to implement the main functions of scientific communication.
Dmitry Kochetkov (Thu,) studied this question.