InfoDoc MicroVeille – Veille dédiée aux Sciences de l'Information et des Bibliothèques // Collecting and Sharing research papers in Library and Information science ISSN 2429-3938

Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

Posted on 18 février 2026 by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Malik Sallam

The peer review system, once a noble aspiration, now lags behind the accelerating demands of modern science.

This opinion piece calls for a decisive departure from that peer review system and advocates for a return to a more accountable, editorially driven model of scholarly evaluation. Scientific editors – already vested with decision‑making authority – should no longer outsource their judgement to external referees. Instead, they must reclaim their rightful role as the primary arbiters of scientific merit.

Too often, editorial judgement is diluted by ritualized consultation, where peer review delays innovation, rewards consensus and obscures responsibility.

I argue for a future in which academic editors decide independently, sign their decisions and are recognized – publicly and professionally – for the intellectual stewardship they provide. By linking editorial work to scientific databases such as Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, we can incentivize rigour, transparency and accountability.

This model would not erode scientific integrity but elevate it, replacing bureaucracy with responsibility. It is time to shed the cloak of anonymity and return authority – and credit – to those best positioned to shape the scientific record; the academic editors themselves.

URL : Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.714

Data as a new research publication type: What could be the role of research libraries as service providers?

Posted on 18 février 2026 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mari Elisa Kuusniem, Susanna Nykyri

This article examines the evolving role of research libraries in supporting the recognition of datasets as legitimate academic outputs through data publishing. Although the academic community increasingly acknowledges the value of treating research data as standalone contributions, there remains a lack of comprehensive frameworks and services to support this shift. Research libraries are well-positioned to lead in data curation and publication by collaborating with researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders.

Using a qualitative, multi-method approach—including a literature review, an exploratory survey of university libraries in the Nordic and Baltic countries, and professional experience—we investigate current practices, challenges, and institutional perspectives on data publishing. Our findings highlight inconsistent terminology in data policies and evolving services for data appraisal and visibility. We differentiate data publishing from general data sharing, emphasizing critical aspects such as data citability, quality control, and ethical reuse.

The article discusses various publishing pathways—such as data journals, repositories, and article supplements—and their respective implications. We identify key service gaps in libraries, particularly in data evaluation and discoverability, and propose strategies for libraries to promote data journals and domain-specific repositories. Ultimately, we advocate for libraries to expand their role by developing integrated services for data appraisal, curation, and preservation, and by strengthening staff competencies in data management. Such efforts are essential for increasing the visibility, credibility, and scholarly impact of research data.

This paper is a continuation to a presentation provided in Liber Conference 2022. The presentation paper was acknowledged with the Innovation Award.

URL : Data as a new research publication type: What could be the role of research libraries as service providers?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.19415

Peer Review at the Crossroads

Posted on 18 février 2026 by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Dmitry Kochetkov

Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolution.

Peer review’s formal institutionalisation in the mid-20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias and institutional inertia.

The study aims to synthesise the evolution, practices and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed-methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modelling (Business Process Model and Notation–BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre-publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing and the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model.

While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post-publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability and institutional priorities.

The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigour with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long-term impact on equity and epistemic norms.

URL : Peer Review at the Crossroads

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2046

From ‘research impact’ to ‘research value’: a new approach to support research for societal benefit

Posted on 16 février 2026 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Ruth A O’Connor, Sejul Malde, A Wendy Russell, Maya Haviland, Kate Bellchambers, Kirsty Jones, Ginny M Sargent, Sara Bice

University research has a vital role to play in addressing complex societal challenges. The research impact (RI) agenda should enable this but is critiqued for creating an audit culture focused narrowly on economic returns on investment and university rankings. There is a need for alternative approaches that better support research for societal benefit. A current hiatus in research assessment processes in Australia provides an opportunity to explore alternatives.

In this study, we elicited responses from 53 university staff in academic and professional roles to explore what constitutes research impact in practice, and what helps to achieve it. The responses highlight a disconnect between the current institutional framing of research impact and both the practices and values of those seeking to create societal benefit through research.

We identify four tensions between the motivations and practice of research staff on one hand and the research impact agenda on the other. Tensions related to (1) narrow definitions of impact inadequately encompassing valuable work; (2) the premise of linear impact pathways inaccurately portraying the complexity of impact; (3) assessment rewarding individual endeavour over collaboration; and (4) assessment focusing on auditing rather than learning through evaluation.

We take these findings and apply current theories of public and cultural value to offer ‘research value’ as an alternative approach to address the four tensions and nurture research for societal benefit.

URL : From ‘research impact’ to ‘research value’: a new approach to support research for societal benefit

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag002

Do data management policies become more open over time?

Posted on 13 février 2026 by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Beth Montague-Hellen

Research data management (RDM) policies are ubiquitous in UK Higher Education Institutions, and are often written and managed by, or with, the library team. RDM policies attempt to balance the requirements of keeping data safe and secure when necessary and opening up data to allow reuse and to support research integrity.

This article uses a framework analysis approach on 134 policies to investigate whether the UK RDM policies have become more open over time in terms of policy points and language. The investigation shows that recent policies have shown an increased likelihood of being more open in several areas: how long data should be archived for, sharing of software, and the mandatory inclusion of data availability statements in journal articles.

Language around FAIR data terms have increased, as has using research integrity as a key reason to manage data according to best practices.

URL : Do data management policies become more open over time?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.23144

Open access journals lack image accessibility guidelines

Posted on 12 février 2026 by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Kaitlin Stack Whitney, Julia Perrone, Christie A. Bahlai

In recent decades, there has been a move to “open” science and research. One component of open access is “accessibility,” often used to mean that data and other products are free to use by others. However, accessibility also refers to considering and meeting the needs of people with disabilities.

Our objective was to evaluate how open access journals incorporate disability accessibility as part of publishing. Using a random sample of 300 English-language journals and image accessibility as a lens, we assessed author guidelines. Of 289 journals with guidelines, 38 (13%) included color choice, six (∼2%) included contrast ratios, and none included alternative text.

We also assessed the open access statements for the same 300 journals to understand how they conceive of openness and accessibility. Of the 298 journals with open access statements, 228 (∼77%) included the words access or accessibility. Yet none included disability or disabled and only two journals (<1%) mentioned inclusive or inclusion.

Our findings indicate that the open access journals sampled are not considering disability accessibility in their submission guidelines or open access frameworks. Incorporating disability accessibility into open scholarship considerations is critical to bridge, and not exacerbate, information inequalities for people with disabilities.

URL : Open access journals lack image accessibility guidelines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00338