Skip to main content

Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in Times of Web 2.0


The second half of the twentieth century brought major changes in the society and consequently in the different areas of the sciences. The growing number of universities after the second world war, the post-war industrial growth and later digitalization transformed the sciences present until then, enlarged the scientific community and the number of scientific publications. In the last couple of decades, the creation of web 2.0 brought new possibilities for knowledge co-production, interaction and exchange between all interested parties in research. The goal of this paper is to explore the possibilities for (extended) peer review and quality control on the internet, primarily blogs and social media, which could contribute to the standard peer review process and open the sciences to a wider audience. We are wondering if these processes could also raise the quality in science and lead to the democratization of knowledge production. We argue that changes in science also have an impact in reshaping the society and bringing democratization in knowledge production.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Margolis and Resnick [10].

  2. McQuail [11].

  3. Bentivegna [3].

  4. Stromer-Galley [16].

  5. Cammaerts and Carpentier [4].

  6. Funtowicz [8].

  7. Ravetz and Funtowicz [13].

  8. Walker [18].

  9. Idem.

  10. Solomon [10].

  11. Funtowicz [8].

  12. Idem.

  13. Pickard [12].

  14. Arms [1].

  15. Pickard [12].

  16. Idem.

  17. Arms [1].

  18. Idem.

  19. Daniels and Feagin [6].

  20. Pickard [12].

  21. Van Rooyen et al. [17].

  22. Idem.

  23. Solomon [15].

  24. Debate [7].

  25. Chang [5].

  26. Solomon [15].

  27. Idem.

  28. Daniels and Feagin [6].

  29. Idem.

  30. Idem.

  31. Arms [1].

  32. Idem.

  33. Idem.

  34. Hermida [9].

  35. Brumfiel [3].

  36. Idem.

  37. Idem.

  38. Pickard [12].

  39. Singer [14].

  40. Arms [1].

  41. Bentivegna [2].

  42. Daniels and Feagin [6].

  43. Ravetz and Funtowicz [13].


  1. Arms, W What are the alternatives to peer review? Quality control in scholarly publishing on the web. J Electron Publ. 2002;8:1 Accessed 2 July 2013.;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0008.103.

  2. Bentivegna S. Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs. Eur J Commun. 2006;21(3):331–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brumfiel, G. Peer review reviewed, Nature News Blog, September 8, 2009,

  4. Cammaerts B, Carpentier N. Introduction. In: Cammaerts B, Carpentier N, editors. Reclaming the media: communication rights and democratic media roles. Bristol: Intellect books; 2007. p. XI–XVIII.

  5. Chang A. Online journals challenge scientific peer review, Mercury News, October 2, 2006,

  6. Daniels J, Feagin J. The (coming) social media revolution in the academy. Fast Capital. 2011;8:2 Accessed 2 July 2013.

  7. Debate. Peer Review, Nature, December 2006,

  8. Funtowicz S. Peer review and quality control. In: Encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; pp. 11179–11183; 2001.

  9. Hermida A. Social media is inherently a system of peer evaluation and is changing the way scholars disseminate their research, raising questions about the way we evaluate academic authority, LSE Blogs, June 27, 2011,

  10. Margolis M, Resnick D. Politics as usual: the “cyberspace revolution”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McQuail D. Media performance: mass communication and the public interest. London: Sage; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pickard KT. The impact of open access and social media on scientific research. J Particip Med. 2012;4:e15.

  13. Ravetz J, Funtowicz S. New forms of science. In: International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier (in press).

  14. Singer J. New media, new scholarship debate. Publish (and be popular) or perish. J Stud. 2008;9(4):599–604.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Solomon D. The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the information age. J Electron Publ. 2007;10:1. Accessed 18 July 2013.;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0010.107.

  16. Stromer-Galley J. Will internet voting increase turnout? In: Howard P, Jones S, editors. Society online: the internet in context. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications; 2004. p. 87–101.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 1999;318(7175):23–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walker T. The future of scientific journals: free access or pay per view? Am Entomol. 1998;44:135–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The author thanks Prof. Silvio Funtowicz who contributed to this paper with his valuable comments and by sharing his knowledge with the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucia Vesnic-Alujevic.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vesnic-Alujevic, L. Peer Review and Scientific Publishing in Times of Web 2.0. Pub Res Q 30, 39–49 (2014).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Peer review
  • Internet
  • Online publishing
  • Social media
  • Social networks
  • Online quality control
  • Open peer review