Blog

Science communication, particularly science journalism, is central to disseminating the latest research to policymakers, practitioners, the public, and other stakeholders. However, it’s vital that the research being communicated is sound and reliable to avoid misinformation and mistrust of research.

Ongoing changes in scholarly publishing

Over recent years, scholarly publishing has undergone significant changes. This includes the peer review process, which has evolved substantially over the past few years.

Traditionally, peer review processes can take several months, or even years, to complete, posing problems for time-sensitive research. In some cases, findings can become outdated in the time it takes for research to be published.

Additionally, peer review is conventionally fully closed, with all discussions happening behind the editorial curtain, which could result in overly critical feedback, the capacity for bias, and more.

However, a move towards open science principles has led to alternative publishing and peer review models, including preprint servers, post-publication peer review, and open peer review models.

Yet, while these options provide multiple benefits for researchers, there have also been questions raised about the validity and quality of research without the traditional peer review process, and implications for science communication when reporting science in these new ways.

How can we assess research quality without the litmus test of traditional peer review? What alternatives are there for assessing quality while maintaining the speed of publication?

Benefits of new peer review models for science communication

Without a doubt, it’s crucial for science journalists to communicate research that accurately represents findings. While research may be moving away from traditional peer review practices, there are still a number of models that can help journalists to report research effectively.

Open peer review

Open peer review models are rapidly becoming more common in scholarly publishing, including at HRB Open Research. The level of openness can differ, from partially open (such as open reports but anonymous reviewers) to fully open (where reviewer reports, reviewer names, and author responses are all publicly available).

Being able to see all the peer review comments, as well as the author responses, helps to provide a deeper insight into the article and peer review evaluations. This includes any potential limitations or uncertainties, which can then be communicated as part of the reporting to give readers the full picture.

Communicating research uncertainties is a key part of scientific communication. Science can have limitations, and making the public and other stakeholders aware of this helps to avoid misinformation.

Additionally, publicly available reviewer names allow journalists and stakeholders to identify expert contacts to discuss the research further, and multiple reviewer contacts help validate different viewpoints to cover the breadth of scientific opinion.

Post-publication peer review

Post-publication peer review is a model in which papers are published, after which the paper undergoes formal invited peer review in line with traditional models.

When combined with rigorous pre-publication checks from editors, as is the case with HRB Open Research, this model can balance faster published times with research quality, helping to maintain rapid reporting of the latest findings while ensuring robust interrogation of the results.

How can researchers help with sound science communication?

Finally, it’s important to highlight that responsible science communication and reporting is the responsibility of all in the scientific community.

Science journalists and other stakeholders are not necessarily experts in the subject matter they report on or work within. As a result, they need support and engagement from researchers themselves to help them report research effectively and to make this research accessible.

Peer reviewing with HRB Open Research

If you’d like to be part of the change, you can find out more about open, post-publication peer review at HRB Open Research.

If you’d like to benefit from this peer review approach for your own work, find out more about publishing your HRB-funded work with the platform.