The COVID-19 pandemic has upended virtually all aspects of our daily lives—from how we go to work and school to the ways we greet each other. And the methods for publishing scientific articles certainly have not been immune to these major changes.
In a “normal” world, a scientific article would have to undergo meticulous peer review before going to press. This would help determine whether the manuscript was accurate and innovative enough for publication.
But COVID-19 has caused information to rapidly change and evolve, in some cases literally by the hour. Consequently, the emphasis has shifted away from scrupulous evaluation and more toward who can get their article to a public audience the fastest.
While this new approach might satisfy readers’ desires to get the latest data as speedily as possible, it comes with major downfalls—most notably, the risk of spreading misinformation and/or incomplete information goes up dramatically.
The dilemma of balancing timeliness with accuracy and trust in the peer review process existed long before COVID-19. Still, the pandemic has thrust the issue into the spotlight now more than ever.
The entire peer review process is, fundamentally, based on a trust system. Editors trust reviewers to vet submissions for scientific soundness; readers, in turn, trust editors to ultimately only accept work that is scientifically sound.
Unfortunately, given the “need for speed” surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting barrage of possibly inaccurate data going to press, this entire trust method risks being completely undermined—unless journal leaders take careful steps to retain the rigorous nature of the peer review process.
So what is the best way to balance diligence with speed during peer review?
Some publishers have argued for the use of preprints during this type of worldwide health crisis. A preprint is a draft of a manuscript that is submitted to a server and is not peer reviewed (although a later version may eventually undergo peer review). If any particular piece of information published in a preprint ends up being a lifesaving matter, it gets to the public community at a much faster pace than the peer review process would allow.
The obvious flaw in preprints is that because they aren’t screened, they tend to contain a fair number of errors, gaps, and/or omissions. That’s not entirely detrimental; they can create the opportunity for misinformation to be spotted by the scientific community—and subsequently corrected—much more quickly.
Also, when reading a preprint, scientists are aware that the article is a non-reviewed first draft, making them less likely to assume all parts of it are ready to become part of the scientific canon. This creates more room for forgiveness.
Nevertheless, preprints don’t eliminate the risks associated with inaccurate data. Thus, it’s still important for editors to simultaneously consider methods of improving more traditional peer review procedures, in light of the current global situation and need for quick work (although the same methods might be beneficial to leave in place even after the threat of COVID-19 has subsided).
Many scientific journals are using an expedited peer review process for any manuscripts related to COVID-19, and the authors know it. This creates room for those authors to take advantage of the situation, possibly getting low quality work to the presses just by putting “COVID-19” in the title (source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/86465).
One possible solution for editors is to more carefully screen their reviewer pool. With so many laboratories shut down or on limited hours, more researchers may be looking for opportunities to review, due to increased time and motivation. Still, it’s important to keep an eye on which experts are analyzing which submissions, as well as their areas of expertise and levels of experience. This will help ensure anything that ends up published is both timely and error-free.
In addition, editors should set strict guidelines for reviews and stick to them. If your journal does not already use a reviewer report form with specific questions to be answered during the review process, this is an ideal time to create one. Some editors-in-chief might also consider writing editorials about how to best craft a meaningful report in an expedient manner.
The age of COVID-19 presents many unique challenges without any easy answers. Balancing peer review quality with timeliness of publishing is one of them. But, the steps taken now will help to productively address this longstanding problem even after the pandemic has died down.
