Peer review: keeping horses in the stable or encouraging them to bolt?

Moderator: Tim Dornan, UK

Richard Hays, AMEE MedEdPublish, Australia
Martin Delahunty, Inspiring STEM Consulting
Rebecca Lawrence, F1000

Pre-publication peer review is currently the ‘gold standard’ of academic rigour. It results, though, in good articles being rejected or altered beyond recognition. Peer review, though, has been authoritatively described as so unreliable that, if it were a drug, it would not be allowed on the market. This symposium will consider whether peer review is the best means of advancing the field or conserves the status quo. It will present post-publication peer review as an alternative, ask whether this could be a more democratic route to scholarly excellence, and whether wastage of good work and disillusionment of authors could become a thing of the past.

Twitter_001 facebook_001 Google_Plus_001 Linkedin_001 YouTube_001