Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review.

同行评议嵌入我们的知识生成系统的核心，被视为一种确定研究质量或学术合法性的方法，同时还经常散布学术声望并在个人中站得住脚。尽管它非常重要，但奇怪的是，它在许多方面仍然知之甚少。为了解决这个问题，我们分析了同行评议，以评估我们对此理论和经验了解的主要差距在哪里。我们确定了核心主题，包括编辑责任，审稿人的主观性和偏见，同行评审的功能和质量，以及同行评审的社会和认知意义。高度优先的差距集中在为编辑人员制定决策过程中的问责制和合理性以及开发更深层次的，对同行评审的社会影响的经验性理解。要最低限度地解决这个问题，就需要就构成同行评审的最小标准集设计共识，并开发支持此目的的共享数据基础结构。这个领域需要出版商和研究资助者的持续资助和承诺，他们都致力于维护已出版学术记录的完整性。我们使用它为同行评审的未来以及在同行评审研究的基础上开发新的研究学科提供指南。这个领域需要出版商和研究资助者的持续资助和承诺，他们都致力于维护已出版学术记录的完整性。我们使用它为同行评审的未来以及在同行评审研究的基础上开发新的研究学科提供指南。这个领域需要出版商和研究资助者的持续资助和承诺，他们都致力于维护已出版学术记录的完整性。我们使用它为同行评审的未来以及在同行评审研究的基础上开发新的研究学科提供指南。