Table 1.
Proposal for the future roadmap into peer review research
| Topic | Topics recommended to be researched | Difficulty | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of editors in peer review | Justifications for editorial decisions | Medium | High |
| Factors that affect editorial quality, impartiality and their impact | Medium | High | |
| How editors select reviewers | Medium | Medium | |
| Impact of reviewer selection on relationships with editors and authors | Hard | Medium | |
| Editorial competencies and motivations for decisions | Medium | High | |
| Impact of decisions on epistemic diversity | Hard | High | |
| Editorial conflicts of interest and relationships with other parties | Easy | High | |
| Extent of editorial misconduct | Hard | High | |
| Influence of reviewer recommendations on editorial decisions | Medium | Medium | |
| Impact of editors’ careers on their scientific career | Medium | Low | |
| Role of reviewers in peer review | Factors that affect reviewer impartiality and their impact | Medium | High |
| Reviewer conflicts of interest and relationships with other parties | Easy | Medium | |
| Reviewer competencies and motivations | Easy | High | |
| Factors that affect inter-reviewer reliability | Medium | Medium | |
| Extent of peer review misconduct | Medium | High | |
| Expectations for reviewers | Easy | High | |
| Impact of incentives for reviewers | Medium | Low | |
| Conformation of reviewers to journal policies | Medium | Low | |
| Extent to which anonymity is compromised | Hard | Medium | |
| How do notions of expertise affect reviewer behaviour | Hard | Medium | |
| Impact of reviewing on scientific careers of reviewers | Medium | Low | |
| Role of authors in peer review | Impact of author recommendations on reviews and reviewers | Medium | Medium |
| Functionality and quality of peer review | What peer review actually is and does | Medium | High |
| How does peer review impact scientific discourse | Hard | High | |
| Relationship between peer review and journal quality | Medium | Medium | |
| Are there cases where peer review is redundant | Medium | Medium | |
| Reproducibility of peer review | Hard | High | |
| The development and impact of peer review standards | Medium | High | |
| Social and epistemic impacts of peer review | Homogeneity and centralisation of reviewer pools | Medium | High |
| Epistemic diversity of peer review | Hard | High | |
| Impact of peer review on innovation or conservatism | Hard | High | |
| Peer review as a vehicle for disseminating prestige | Hard | High | |
| Type of peer review | Factors influencing the choice of peer review type | Medium | High |
| Influence of peer review type on quality of review and potential misconduct | Medium | High | |
| Do micro-publications impact reviewer engagement | Medium | Low | |
| Is interactive peer review more effective | Medium | Medium | |
| How have/will preprints impact peer review | Medium | Medium | |
| Are overlay journals/services more effective | Medium | Medium | |
| Which OPR services do researchers prefer | Easy | Medium | |
| What measures can incentivise OPR | Medium | Medium | |
| Researcher attitudes towards OPR | Easy | High | |
| Researcher attitudes towards OPR for non-traditional outputs | Easy | Medium | |
| The impact of OPR on participant diversity | Medium | High | |
| The impact of blinding on biases and review quality | Medium | High | |
| Impact of open review reports | Hard | High | |
| Impact of review type on careers of reviewers | Medium | Medium |
The difficulty levels primarily refer to the relative ease of obtaining empirical data for study, should such data even exist. The priority levels relate to their perceived impact on the future of peer review. Both are subjective estimates of the authors