Abstract:Scientists who engage in science and the scientific endeavor should seek truth with conviction of morals and commitment to ethics. While the number of publications continues to increase, the number of retractions has increased at a faster rate. Journals publish fraudulent research papers despite claims of peer review and adherence to publishing ethics. Nevertheless, appropriate ethical peer review will remain a gatekeeper when selecting research manuscripts in scholarly publishing and approving research applications for grant funding. However, this peer review must become more open, fair, transparent, equitable, and just with new recommendations and guidelines for reproducible and accountable reviews that support and promote fair citation and citational justice. We should engineer this new peer-review process with modern informatics technology and information science to provide and defend better safeguards for truth and integrity, to clarify and maintain the provenance of information and ideas, and to rebuild and restore trust in scholarly research institutions. Indeed, this new approach will be necessary in the current post-truth era to counter the ease and speed with which mis-information, dis-information, anti-information, caco-information, and mal-information spread through the internet, web, news, and social media. The most important question for application of new peer-review methods to these information wars should be ‘Who does what when?’ in support of reproducible and accountable reviews. Who refers to the authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers as participants in the review process. What refers to disclosure of the participants' identities, the material content of author manuscripts and reviewer commentaries, and other communications between authors and reviewers. When refers to tracking the sequential points in time for which disclosure of whose identity, which content, and which communication at which step of the peer-review process for which audience of readers and reviewers. We believe that quality peer review, and peer review of peer review, must be motivated and maintained by elevating their status and prestige to an art and a science. Both peer review itself and peer review analyses of peer reviews should be incentivised by publishing peer reviews as citable references separately from the research report reviewed while crossreferenced and crosslinked to the report reviewed.

Our future, we decide: five ways to reform the scientific publication process

Envisioning the scientific paper of the future

Towards a more sustainable academic publishing system

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future

Publishing in the Open Access and Open Science era

Publishing Biomedical Research: a rapidly evolving ecosystem

Build Infrastructure in Publishing Scientific Journals to Benefit Medical Scientists

Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

The changing roles of scientific journals

How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought

Proposal for a distributed, community-driven academic publishing system

“Reproducible” Research in Mathematical Sciences Requires Changes in our Peer Review Culture and Modernization of our Current Publication Approach

Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review

Sustainable computational science: the ReScience initiative

Digital Transformation of Academic Publishing: A Call for the Decentralization and Democratization of Academic Journals

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Scientific peer review in the modern era: A comprehensive guide

How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers