[Paper Review] A proposal for regularly updated review/survey articles: "Perpetual Reviews"

David L. Mobley, Daniel M. Zuckerman|arXiv (Cornell University)|Feb 3, 2015

Survey Methodology and Nonresponse3 citations

TL;DR

The paper proposes 'perpetual reviews'—living, regularly updated review articles that evolve with their fields, leveraging digital platforms to maintain relevance and depth. This model supports ongoing scholarly impact for non-research scholarship by enabling dynamic, pedagogically rich, and technically detailed surveys without space constraints.

ABSTRACT

We advocate the publication of review/survey articles that will be updated regularly, both in traditional journals and novel venues. We call these "perpetual reviews." This idea naturally builds on the dissemination and archival capabilities present in the modern internet, and indeed perpetual reviews exist already in some forms. Perpetual review articles allow authors to maintain over time the relevance of non-research scholarship that requires a significant investment of effort. Further, such reviews published in a purely electronic format without space constraints can also permit more pedagogical scholarship and clearer treatment of technical issues that remain obscure in a brief treatment.

Motivation & Objective

• To address the growing need for up-to-date, comprehensive review literature in fast-moving scientific fields.
• To propose a sustainable model for non-research scholarly output that maintains relevance over time.
• To leverage digital publishing's capabilities to support deeper, more pedagogical treatment of complex topics.
• To encourage journals and digital platforms to adopt mechanisms for continuous review updates.
• To reduce the obsolescence of survey literature in rapidly evolving disciplines.

Proposed method

• Propose a new article type—'perpetual reviews'—that are published initially as comprehensive surveys and then updated periodically.
• Utilize digital publishing platforms to eliminate space limitations, enabling detailed technical explanations and pedagogical content.
• Advocate for institutional and journal support to maintain and update these reviews over time.
• Suggest that perpetual reviews be versioned and citable, with clear revision histories and DOIs.
• Encourage community involvement through peer review and contribution mechanisms for updates.
• Position perpetual reviews as a complement to traditional research articles, especially in fields with rapid knowledge turnover.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 How can review literature remain relevant in fields that evolve rapidly?
• RQ2 What digital publishing models can support the continuous updating of scholarly surveys?
• RQ3 How can non-research scholarship maintain long-term impact and pedagogical value?
• RQ4 What institutional and technical infrastructures are needed to sustain perpetual reviews?
• RQ5 How can perpetual reviews be recognized and cited in academic evaluation systems?

Key findings

• Perpetual reviews can significantly extend the relevance and utility of survey literature beyond the lifespan of a single publication.
• Digital platforms enable the inclusion of detailed technical explanations and pedagogical content that are often omitted in brief review articles.
• The model supports ongoing scholarly engagement with review content, reducing the risk of obsolescence.
• Versioned, citable updates with DOIs ensure traceability and academic recognition of evolving content.
• The approach is already partially realized in some forms, indicating feasibility and community interest.
• The proposal calls for broader adoption by journals and digital libraries to institutionalize the perpetual review model.