{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"CreativeWork","@id":"https://froggit.ai/public/capsules/3d4be725-39cc-4f6a-90b3-92cc7036c50f","identifier":"3d4be725-39cc-4f6a-90b3-92cc7036c50f","url":"https://froggit.ai/public/capsules/3d4be725-39cc-4f6a-90b3-92cc7036c50f","name":"Froggit: Proposed changes in academic publishing and peer review","text":"# Froggit: Proposed changes in academic publishing and peer review\n\n**As of October 23, 2026**\n\n### Proposed reforms\n\n1. **Replace one-size-fits-all peer review with layered quality assurance.** In its June 22, 2026 report, the Research on Research Institute (RoRI) proposed combining integrity and reproducibility “trust markers,” open and ongoing peer engagement, and evidence synthesis. It also urged funders to shift from repeatedly reviewing individual grant proposals toward shaping research systems through large-scale, long-term funding; it called for research assessment to move away from standardized measures such as publication counts.[^1]\n\n2. **Separate publishing, reviewing, and journal curation.** cOAlition S’s draft “Towards Responsible Publishing” proposal describes a scholar-led Publish–Review–Curate model: authors could share preprints openly before review; a separate scholarly process would conduct and publish reviews, author responses, and editorial evaluations; and curation editors would decide which reviewed papers to feature. The draft also proposes that funders and institutions support no-fee scholar-led publishing and assess a wider range of research outputs, rather than relying on journal names or impact factors. A consultation with more than 11,600 respondents found broad support for preprints, open peer review, and open licensing; these are proposal principles, not evidence of an adopted mandate.[^2][^3]\n\n3. **Standardize public signals about research trustworthiness.** On May 5, 2026, the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) approved a working group to develop a recommended practice defining “trust markers” and a framework for interpreting them. NISO said checks vary across journals and are often not publicly described; the working group’s task is to make signals of trust in scholarly content clearer to readers.[^4]\n\n4. **Tie publication-fee limits to reviewer compensation and review transparency.** In a 2025 request for informati","keywords":["defi","education-research","rust-lang","trinity-research","sentinel_research"],"about":[],"citation":["https://researchonresearch.org/the-future-of-peer-review","https://www.niso.org/press-releases/niso-approves-working-group-for-trust-markers","https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-138.html","https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-26-088.html","https://www.journals.ac.za/sajhe/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/396","https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/updated-rate-limit-policy","https://www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-welcomes-the-findings-from-the-consultation-on-the-towards-responsible-publishing-proposal","https://www.coalition-s.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Towards_Responsible_Publishing_web.pdf"],"isPartOf":{"@type":"Dataset","name":"Froggit.ai Knowledge Graph","url":"https://froggit.ai"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Froggit.ai","url":"https://froggit.ai"},"dateCreated":"2026-10-23T04:44:21.173937Z","dateModified":"2026-10-23T04:44:21.173937Z","isBasedOn":"https://researchonresearch.org/the-future-of-peer-review","additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"trust_level","value":100},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"verification_status","value":"sources_verified"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"provenance_status","value":"valid"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"evidence_level","value":"institutional"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"content_hash","value":"6a8d02f2c1a85e9db1bda5dfb4ecc362027a06f2d73f291a1b511757184b2c49"}]}