Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Synlett 2021; 32(09): 885-891
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705955
account

How and Why Crowd Reviewing Works

Manuel van Gemmeren  ∗
a   Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Organisch-Chemisches Institut, Corrensstraße 36, 48149 Münster, Germany   Email: mvangemmeren@uni-muenster.de
,
Benjamin List  ∗
b   Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz 1, 45470 Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany   Email: list@kofo.mpg.de
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category


Dedicated to Prof. K. Peter C. Vollhardt on the occasion of his 75th birthday

Abstract

In this Account, the development of Select Crowd Reviewing from the initial idea through a pilot phase to the present moment, when it is now used as the default method for the evaluation of manuscripts at Synlett and SynOpen is detailed. We describe the workflow through which a manuscript is evaluated when Select Crowd Reviewing is applied. A series of questions and answers is used to address typical concerns and the advantages Select Crowd Reviewing offers when compared to traditional peer review.

1 Introduction: The History of Select Crowd Reviewing

2 The Select Crowd Reviewing Workflow

3 Questions We Have Received Regarding Select Crowd Reviewing

4 Conclusion

Key words

Select Crowd Reviewing - manuscript evaluation - Synlett - peer review - wisdom of the crowd


Publication History

Received: 14 September 2020

Accepted after revision: 22 September 2020

Article published online:
30 October 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References


      • For selected resources discussing the merits, but also challenges faced by the peer review system, see:
    • 1a Smith R. Br. Med. J. 1988; 296: 774
      CrossrefPubMed
    • 1b Shatz D. Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield; Lanham, MD: 2004
      Google Scholar
    • 1c Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, Mans R, Mayhew D, McGowan S, Polter A, Qadri Y, Sarfare S, Schultz K, Splittgerber R, Stephenson J, Tower C, Walton RG, Zotov A. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2007; 31: 145
      CrossrefPubMed
    • 1d Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Front. Neurosci. 2015; 9: 169
      PubMed
    • 1e Csiszar A. Nature 2016; 532: 306
    • 1f Faggion CM. Jr. Br. Dent. J. 2016; 220: 167
      CrossrefPubMed
    • 1g Carroll AE. Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others, Nov. 8, 2018. The New York Times; New York: 2018: 3
      Google Scholar
  • 2 List B. Nature 2017; 546: 9
    CrossrefPubMed

      • For selected resources highlighting the sensitivity of the peer review system towards unethical behavior and fraud, see:
    • 3a Smith R. J. R. Soc. Med. 2006; 99: 178
      CrossrefPubMed
    • 3b Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Nature 2014; 515: 480