WG 5

Scientific Publishing Innovations and the Future of Peer Review and Journals

Language: English. Simultaneous translation not available.


With the progress towards open science, scientific communication is facing a new wave of innovations towards more openness and speed of research publication which will deeply affect the way the peer review function is carried out and the overall role of journals in assuring quality and adding value to manuscripts.

Several initiatives are promoting the generalized adoption of open access preprints as a formal beginning stage of research publication, which has been common since the 90’s in the physics community. And, in the last decade, new ways to carry out the evaluation of manuscripts have emerged either to replace or to improve the traditional methods, which are widely criticized as being slow and expensive in addition to lacking transparency.

Quality nonprofit journals from emerging and developing countries have succeeded to follow the main innovations brought by the Internet. In addition to the technicalities of the digital publishing, there is a wide adoption of Open Access in the international flow of scientific information. The new wave of innovations that affect the peer review function and the changing role of journals pose new challenges to the emerging and developing countries in regard of scientific publishing. The adoption of these innovations is essential for progress of SciELO as a leading open access program to enhance scientific communication.

The scope of this workshop aims at an in-depth analysis and discussion of the state of art and main trends of the peer review function, the modalities of carrying it out as well as of the increasing adoption of mechanisms to speed publication such as preprints and how they affect and potentially renew the role of journals. These recommendations will guide SciELO policies on manuscript evaluation and on the adoption of preprint publications.

How to contribute

You are invited to participate and cooperate with the SciELO 20 Years celebration with comments, testimonies, blog posts, articles, etc, related to the topic of this or other working groups.


NASSI-CALÒ, L. Adoption of open peer review is increasing [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2017 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2017/01/10/adoption-of-open-peer-review-is-increasing/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Annotating the scholarly literature online [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/12/08/annotating-the-scholarly-literature-online/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Assessment of reproducibility in research results leads to more questions than answers [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2017 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2017/02/08/assessment-of-reproducibility-in-research-results-leads-to-more-questions-than-answers/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. eLife: an example of improved peer review [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/05/06/elife-an-example-of-improved-peer-review/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Enhancing peer review: guides, tutorials and good practice manuals [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/05/12/enhancing-peer-review-guides-tutorials-and-good-practice-manuals/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Peer-review as a research topic in its own right [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/04/24/peer-review-as-a-research-topic-in-its-own-right/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Peer review: bad with it, worse without it [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/04/17/peer-review-bad-with-it-worse-without-it/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Peer review: journal recommendation to reviewers [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2017 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2017/09/20/peer-review-journal-recommendation-to-reviewers/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Peer review modalities, pros and cons [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/03/27/peer-review-modalities-pros-and-cons/

NASSI-CALÒ, L. The editors’ role on peer review: how to identify bad referees [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2017 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2017/06/29/the-editors-role-on-peer-review-how-to-identify-bad-referees/

SPINAK, E. Peer review – on structures and content [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/05/30/peer-review-on-structures-and-content/

SPINAK, E. What will peer review be like in 2030? [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2017 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2017/07/26/what-will-peer-review-be-like-in-2030/

TARGINO, M.G. and GARCIA, J.C.R. Open peer review perspectives: a thought-provoking question mark [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/05/14/open-peer-review-perspectives-a-thought-provoking-question-mark/

VELTEROP, J. Communication and peer review should be universally separated [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/05/25/communication-and-peer-review-should-be-universally-separated/

VELTEROP, J. Is the reproducibility crisis exacerbated by pre-publication peer review? [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2016 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2016/10/20/is-the-reproducibility-crisis-exacerbated-by-pre-publication-peer-review/

VELTEROP, J. Science (which needs communication) first, careers (which need selectivity) later [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2015 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/10/29/science-which-needs-communication-first-careers-which-need-selectivity-later/

VELTEROP, J. What does a new approach mean (for journals, research councils)? [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 29 August 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/07/19/what-does-a-new-approach-mean-for-journals-research-councils/


ALLEN, E. Open peer review through the lens of F1000’s open research publishing platforms. SciELO 20 Years Repository [online]. [viewed on 20 set 2018]. Available from: http://repository.scielo20.org/documents/article/view/115

ALVAREZ, G.R. AND CAREGNATO, S.E. Open pre-review: avaliação de preprints em repositórios. SciELO 20 Years Repository [online]. [viewed on 14 set 2018]. Available from: http://repository.scielo20.org/documents/article/view/103

SCIENTIFIC ELECTRONIC LIBRARY ONLINE. SciELO Guidelines: The Peer Review Process in Journal Publishing. Version September 2018. [viewed on 11 September 2018]. Available from: https://docs.google.com/document/d/ 1iTmddgQqqbZGqBLHst1r40mowkCsAHEpKcNhtYIGnW0/edit?usp=sharing

VELTEROP, J. On peer review and preprint publication in the sciences. SciELO 20 Years Repository [online]. [viewed on 29 aug 2018]. Available from: http://repository.scielo20.org/documents/article/view/85


In development.


In development.


powered by Odyno gGroupslogo


In development.

Group coordinator

Adeilton Brandão


Ivone Evangelista Cabral

Executive Secretary

Alex Mendonça