Global Review and Negative Citation System

In an age of exponential research growth and digital dissemination, maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publishing has become increasingly challenging, particularly in the technology and information systems domains. Rising submission volumes, constrained reviewer capacity, and mounting concerns about plagiarism, bias, and unethical authorship practices strain traditional peer review models. Moreover, the lag between submission and publication can leave innovative ideas vulnerable to unauthorized use, especially when rejected manuscripts are inadequately protected. This study introduces a technology-enabled, multi-phase framework that integrates two core concepts: the Global Review model and the Negative Citation mechanism. The Global Review model advocates for an interdisciplinary, semi-open peer review process that combines traditional editorial oversight with transparent, structured dialogue among verified reviewers. Drawing inspiration from existing open peer review systems (e.g., OpenReview, JOSS), our approach enhances accountability through threaded reviewer discussions, dynamic accreditation of reviewers, and flexible options for identity disclosure based on context and risk. An editorial moderation layer is embedded to counterbalance crowd-sourced decision-making, ensuring nuanced evaluations rather than binary up/down voting. The Negative Citation mechanism, while still in development, is conceptualized not as a punitive tool but as a method for post-publication quality monitoring. It provides a formal process for documenting well-substantiated critiques of published work, encouraging methodological rigor, and deterring malpractices without suppressing academic risk-taking. Recognizing ethical concerns, the system includes safeguards such as dispute resolution pathways, structured reporting guidelines, and independent ethical review panels. Grounded in the principles of open science, this model builds on and differentiates itself from existing platforms by emphasizing scalability, reviewer inclusivity, and balanced oversight. This paper critically engages with current literature and platforms, highlights challenges with reviewer incentives, and proposes a phased pilot implementation in conference tracks or special issues to evaluate feasibility and impact. We argue that this integrated framework can foster a more transparent, timely, and ethical research culture—one that not only protects the originality of ideas but also rebuilds trust in the academic publishing system.