Abstract
nema
Highlights
The rate of scientific information generation has increased tremendously in the last few years as a result of the increase in both the number of researchers, studies and papers, and the number of scientific journals
The most recent data released by Clarivate Analytics in 2017 estimate that 2 million scientific reports are published annually, imposing a large demand for the increase in the peer-review capacity to manage all scientific contributions [3]
The same study emphasized two important issues: (i) “a need to increase a pool of reviewers, especially in high‐growing countries and emerging markets, and among early stage researchers (ESR) and (ii) a need to ensure that reviewers in that pool are well trained, trustworthy and capable of producing good quality reports“ [2]
Summary
The most recent data released by Clarivate Analytics in 2017 estimate that 2 million scientific reports are published annually, imposing a large demand for the increase in the peer-review capacity to manage all scientific contributions [3]. As the single-blind process is most often applied, peer-review presents an activity, which engages most qualified people to perform an extremely important social task while generally remaining unknown apart from editors. This „unfairness” has been recognized in recent years by publishers and others offering platforms for recognition of individual review contributions, such as Publons, Reviewer Credits, and Science Open [6,7,8].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
