Page:Finch Group report.pdf/66

 experiments undertaken, with the aim of making peer review more effective. These have included measures to make reviewers’ names and/or the content of their reports open to authors and to readers; and to seek and publish feedback from a broad user community once an article has been informally disseminated or formally published. Different approaches appear to work more or less effectively in different disciplines, and post-publication review is widely seen as at best a complement to pre-publication review: while it may be useful for controversial or high-profile papers, it works less well for papers of more limited interest, not least because readers are unwilling to devote time to reviewing and commenting when they lack any incentive to do so.

6.28. It is important, therefore, that there should be continuing monitoring and evaluation of peer review practices, and experimentation to seek improvements; and we support the recommendations of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to that effect.

H. High-quality services to readers

6.29. Readers need help to discover information that is relevant to their needs and to navigate their way around the ever-increasing variety and volume of research publications. It is impossible for anyone to read and absorb all the publications that might be relevant in other than the most narrowly specialist fields of study. Hence the growing interest in machine-to-machine services. Readers have also come to expect the development of new services that enable them to interact with the content to which they have access, with enhanced links to other sources of information, and services that enable them to interrogate, manipulate and organise the content presented to them on a variety of platforms.

6.30. Publishers, libraries, aggregators and other intermediaries invest considerable sums in developing and implementing such services, and new entrants have added significantly to the range that is now available to readers. It is critically important that the research communications eco-system should continue to provide opportunities and incentives for new entrants to develop new services in this way. For as technology moves forward, readers will continue to demand more, and it is therefore crucial to sustain an environment that promotes innovation, investment in the infrastructure, and continued improvement in services.