The experimental ‘Distributed Peer Review’ system more than doubles the speed of reviewing grant applications, and has been featured in the two journals’ news sections after being presented at the MetaScience 2025 conference.
‘Distributed Peer Review’ (DPR) requires researchers to review other applications for the same funding they are applying for themselves. Its advocates argue that it has the potential to speed up and democratise the peer review process, compared with conventional processes, such as panel-based decision making.
The research involving an interdisciplinary team from Sheffield directly compared the DPR process and the conventional panel process for the same funding proposals. It was co-led by Professor Stephen Pinfield from the School of Information, Journalism and Communication and Professor Tom Stafford from the School of Psychology, both also members of the University’s Research on Research Institute (RoRI). The project was co-designed and co-produced with colleagues from the Volkswagen Foundation, the largest private research funder in Germany.
Following the design of the study, the analysis of the results of the different processes was carried out by Research Associate, Anna Butters. In parallel, the project conducted interviews with those involved, carried out by Research Associate, Dr Melanie Benson Marshall. The project team are now analysing the different datasets gathered and will use their analysis as a basis for making recommendations about how peer review practices can be improved.
The results were presented at the MetaScience 2025 conference in London in June, attended by over 800 delegates. The story has since been picked up and covered in detail by the news teams at prestigious journals Nature and Science.
Professor Pinfield said: "Peer review is often seen as a cornerstone of academic quality assurance and decision-making, so it is important we understand more about how it works. Comparing the processes involved in two different approaches to peer review, and understanding the different outcomes, can help us design better peer review systems in future.”
“No system is perfect, but it is important to understand the trade-offs involved with different approaches. Our research, therefore, has very practical implications for ensuring that peer-review systems are as transparent and equitable as possible.”
RoRI have produced a practical guide on how to implement DPR aimed at funders in particular. It includes a checklist, guidance on evaluation, feedback and platform setup, and an overview of how DPR differs from conventional review processes.