Peer review of journal submissions has become one of the most important pillars of quality management in academic publishing. Because of growing concerns with the quality and effectiveness of the system, a host of enthusiastic innovators has proposed and experimented with new procedures and technologies. However, little is known about whether these innovations manage to convince other journal editors. This paper will address open questions regarding the implementation of new review procedures, the occurrence rate of various peer review procedures and their distribution over scientific disciplines or academic publishers, as well as the motivations for editors or publishers to engage in novel review procedures. It shows that in spite of enthusiastic innovation, the adoption of new peer review procedures is in fact very slow, with the exception of text similarity scanners. For now, peer review innovations appear to be restricted to specific niches in academic publishing. Analysing these niches, the article concludes with a reflection on the circumstances in which innovations might be more widely implemented.

中文翻译：

---

期刊同行评审和编辑评价：谨慎的创新者还是沉睡的巨人？

期刊投稿的同行评审已成为学术出版质量管理的最重要支柱之一。由于对系统质量和有效性的日益关注，许多热情的创新者提出并尝试了新的程序和技术。然而，关于这些创新是否能够说服其他期刊编辑，我们知之甚少。本文将解决有关新审查程序的实施、各种同行审查程序的发生率及其在科学学科或学术出版商中的分布，以及编辑或出版商参与新审查程序的动机等开放性问题。它表明，尽管创新热情，但采用新的同行评审程序实际上非常缓慢，除了文本相似性扫描仪。目前，同行评审创新似乎仅限于学术出版的特定领域。分析这些利基，文章最后反思了创新可能更广泛实施的情况。