The FAIR framework: ethical hybrid peer review

Traditional peer review faces critical challenges including systematic bias, prolonged delays, reviewer fatigue, and lack of transparency. These failures violate ethical obligations of beneficence, justice, and autonomy while hindering scientific progress and costing billions annually in academic la...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Main Authors:	Grünebaum Amos, Dudenhausen Joachim, Chervenak Frank A.
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	De Gruyter 2025-10-01
Subjects:	peer review artificial intelligence research ethics scientific publishing hybrid systems medical publishing
Online Access:	https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2025-0285

Similar Items

Ethical limits and suggestions for improving the use of AI in scientific research, academic publishing, and the peer review process, based on deontological and consequentialist viewpoints
by: Mohammed Daoudi
Published: (2025-07-01)

Reviewing Peer Review
by: Barry London
Published: (2021-08-01)

Peer review vs Publish all – Navigating the changing landscape of scientific publication
by: Mariette Pretorius
Published: (2024-05-01)

Peer review without gatekeeping
by: Michael B Eisen, et al.
Published: (2022-10-01)

Editorial bullying: an exploration of acts impacting publication ethics and related environment
by: Fawad Javed, et al.
Published: (2024-02-01)

How and why eLife selects papers for peer review
by: eLife Editorial Leadership, et al.
Published: (2024-07-01)

Peer review: what are the OBJN responsabilities?
by: Isabel CF da Cruz
Published: (2006-12-01)

Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing 2007 Thanks to Peer Reviewers and Authors
by: Isabel CF da Cruz
Published: (2007-11-01)

Online Brazilian Journal of Nursing 2007 Thanks to Peer Reviewers and Authors
by: Isabel CF da Cruz
Published: (2007-12-01)

Online Braz J of Nursing 2006 Thanks to Peer Reviewers and Authors
by: Isabel CF da Cruz
Published: (2006-12-01)

ETHICAL ISSUES IN MEDICAL PUBLISHING
by: Matjaž Zwitter
Published: (2001-09-01)

Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
by: Sang-Jun Kim
Published: (2024-08-01)

Scientific criticism. A plea for continuous and open peer review
by: Edward Vigmond, et al.
Published: (2025-09-01)

TO THE EDITOR
by: Timo Partonen, et al.
Published: (2023-10-01)

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved]
by: Jonathan P. Tennant, et al.
Published: (2017-11-01)

Roles and Responsibilities for Peer Reviewers of International Journals
by: Carol Nash
Published: (2023-06-01)

Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Sarah Holst, et al.
Published: (2018-08-01)

The Open Science Peer Review Oath [v1; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4ou]
by: Jelena Aleksic, et al.
Published: (2014-11-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-04-01)

An Open Science Peer Review Oath [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/4wf]
by: Jelena Aleksic, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
by: Marco Giordan, et al.
Published: (2016-10-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 2; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)

The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation [version 3; referees: 2 approved]
by: Stefanie Gregorius, et al.
Published: (2018-01-01)

Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview [v2; ref status: indexed, http://f1000r.es/5n1]
by: Emily Ford
Published: (2015-07-01)

A Message to Our 2024 Peer Reviewers: Thank You
by: Advocate Aurora Research Institute
Published: (2025-01-01)

Making the most of peer review
by: Nikolai Slavov
Published: (2015-11-01)

Publication guideline check! What do the academician, clinician and post-graduate student think? A cross-sectional study
by: Jayaditya Modak, et al.
Published: (2024-01-01)

What does scientific publishing in public health mean?
by: Paolo Vineis
Published: (2022-11-01)

Trinity review: integrating Registered Reports with research ethics and funding reviews
by: Yuki Mori, et al.
Published: (2022-05-01)

Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals – a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection
by: Fabrice Frank, et al.
Published: (2023-08-01)

Challenges Facing Scientific Publishing in the Field of Earth & Space Sciences
by: AGU Editorial Network
Published: (2024-08-01)

Consultative review is worth the wait
by: Stuart RF King
Published: (2017-09-01)

A Comment of the comments
by: Pance Naumov
Published: (2024-04-01)

Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century
by: Irene Hames
Published: (2014-02-01)

The first year of a new era
by: Timothy E Behrens, et al.
Published: (2024-02-01)

Implementing a "publish, then review" model of publishing
by: Michael B Eisen, et al.
Published: (2020-12-01)

Beyond scoops to best practices
by: Eve Marder
Published: (2017-07-01)

Fundamentals of Scholarly Peer Review: A Workshop for Health Professions Educators on Practicing Scholarly Citizenship
by: David P. Way, et al.
Published: (2021-08-01)

Usos, limitaciones y prospectiva de la evaluación por pares
by: Faustino Moreno Ceja, et al.
Published: (2012-08-01)

To be SEER 1.0 or not to be SEER 2.0? That is one of a few questions
by: Isabel CF da Cruz
Published: (2007-04-01)