How and Why Crowd Reviewing Works

Manuel van Gemmeren; Benjamin List

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1705955

Synlett, Table of Contents

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 ∗

^aWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Organisch-Chemisches Institut, Corrensstraße 36, 48149 Münster, Germany Email: mvangemmeren@uni-muenster.de

,

Benjamin List ∗

^bMax-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Platz 1, 45470 Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany Email: list@kofo.mpg.de

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

All articles of this category

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

Full Text

References

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
1b Shatz D. Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield; Lanham, MD: 2004
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
1d Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Front. Neurosci. 2015; 9: 169
1e Csiszar A. Nature 2016; 532: 306
1f Faggion CM. Jr. Br. Dent. J. 2016; 220: 167
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

2 List B. Nature 2017; 546: 9

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
3b Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Nature 2014; 515: 480

For recent reports on Select Crowd Reviewing at Synlett/Thieme Chemistry, see:

4a Stoye E. Chemistry Journal Introduces ‘Intelligent Crowd’ Peer Review. In Chemistry World, Jun. 8, 2017. Royal Society of Chemistry; Cambridge: 2017
4b Preston A.; The Future of Peer Review, In The Scientific American (2017); Springer Nature: Berlin; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-future-of-peer-review/
4c Nguyen TM. Chem. Eng. News 2018; 96(47): 24