One of the Recognized Benefits of Peer Review Is
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
oneClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
iiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
iiiChair, Communications and Publications Partition (CPD), International Federation for Ill Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been divers as a process of subjecting an writer'southward scholarly work, enquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their subject field and to control the dissemination of research information to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are non published without prior expert review. Despite its broad-spread use past most journals, the peer review procedure has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has go an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to foreclose this work from reaching the scientific customs. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific advice. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts every bit a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, in that location has not withal been a foolproof system adult to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic ways of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant gamble to advances in scientific cognition and its future potential. The current commodity summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with unlike types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined every bit "a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two principal purposes. Firstly, it acts every bit a filter to ensure that only high quality inquiry is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are accounted suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to better the quality of their manuscripts, and also place any errors that need correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was adult long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (ii). The peer review process was first described by a doctor named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syrian arab republic, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Doc (2). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the land of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Post-obit treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the md had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were non met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (ii).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (iii). At this time, it became more than important to regulate the quality of the written textile that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Salary wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what somewhen became known every bit the first universal method for generating and assessing new scientific discipline (iii). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the showtime scientific journals to systematically publish research results (four). Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), withal, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (6). It did not have long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research written report before publication. The Majestic Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are nigh versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (7). The Royal Society of London adopted this review process in 1752 and adult the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the 2d World War, at least partly due to the big increase in scientific research during this menses (7). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, just also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal's standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has get the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it finer subjects an author's work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce loftier quality research that volition advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and actuality in the advocacy of science. A scientific hypothesis or argument is more often than not non accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed periodical (viii). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Bear upon Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific advice for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a enquiry study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist and so submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a footstep referred to every bit pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the periodical, and that information technology fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the newspaper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to achieved researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are besides known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1). The function of the editor is to select the nigh appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted adequately, and in an effective and timely manner. They must as well ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads information technology carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field past evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers place whatsoever scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers requite recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should exist accepted, rejected, or improved earlier publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to analyze the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that tin be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the report'southward scope (ix). If the paper is accepted, equally per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted past the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review procedure is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more than general knowledge base. Peer reviewers tin can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to onetime masters in the field. Ofttimes, the immature reviewers are the near responsive and evangelize the all-time quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Inquiry Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals volition often accept a pool of reviewers with various backgrounds to allow for many dissimilar perspectives. They will also go on a rather large reviewer banking concern, so that reviewers practice not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple manufactures simultaneously.
WHY Exercise REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically non paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees accept to review at all. Some feel an bookish duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers too. Reviewers may besides have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much equally possible. Others review to go along up-to-engagement with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists utilize peer review as an opportunity to advance their ain inquiry every bit it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are swell on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, equally sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired equally editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is oft noted on one'southward resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their functioning for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also be an effective mode for a scientist to bear witness their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (five).
ARE REVIEWERS Cracking TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted past the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that ninety% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). Ane 3rd of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per yr, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.
HOW LONG DOES It Take TO REVIEW ONE Newspaper?
On average, information technology takes approximately six hours to review i newspaper (12), withal, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Scientific discipline" survey claims to accept taken more than 100 hours to review their last newspaper (12).
HOW TO Determine IF A Periodical IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black volume symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will offset determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer volition so consider whether the research question is of import and original, a procedure which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the written report. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and curtailed. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Printing in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a meaning role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could commonly judge whether an commodity will be of interest to them based on the championship and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to exercise so (14).
The abstruse is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the written report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that forty% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-eighty% of the time, while 32% could guess an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the fourth dimension (fourteen). This demonstrates that the abstruse lonely is oftentimes used to assess the value of an commodity.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the inquiry question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question beingness studied is of involvement to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the written report aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the study'due south purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient groundwork information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should exist detailed enough that it tin be used information technology to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to respond the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods department, it is the peer reviewer'south job to identify what details demand to exist added.
The results department is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the information are explained without judgement, bias or estimation (15). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, also as figures and tables in improver to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers too confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will also make certain that tabular array and effigy captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The word section is where the data is analyzed. Hither, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (xv). The give-and-take describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may besides provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for futurity inquiry (15). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the word addresses the limitations of the study, whatsoever anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous enquiry, and the theoretical implications and applied applications of the study.
The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the data sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or translate results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to writer concluding name, or numbered according to the gild in which they appear in the newspaper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used accordingly, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. Afterward thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether information technology meets the periodical'southward standards for publication,
and whether it falls inside the summit 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review procedure is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, unmarried-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know i another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer'due south identity is kept private, merely the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-bullheaded review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, existence careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without existence disrespectful. Open up reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (2). On the other paw, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in gild to be polite (2). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author's work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their human relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study past the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is past far the almost common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review (vii). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (2). This allows the reviewer to brand independent decisions without the influence of the author (2). The principal disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own information beginning (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased confronting the author based on their country of origin or previous piece of work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-bullheaded peer review is a skilful idea (12), and the Mainland china survey indicates that 45% of authors take had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of inquiry, it can sometimes be piece of cake for the reviewer to decide the identity of the writer based on writing style, subject thing or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (two).
Masking the author'due south identity from peer reviewers, every bit is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A report by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and writer quality assessments were completed for twoscore manuscripts (17). At that place was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted past McNutt et al. had different results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their written report targeted but biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter (17). Additionally, at that place were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking writer identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to mail service-publication peer review. Equally many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, appoint in online discussions and mail service a formal review. For case, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Primal have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (ten). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Merely viii% of authors surveyed in the People's republic of china study had experience with post-publication review (seven). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to bear peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous procedure, which allows the public to encounter both the article and the reviews as the article is being adult (nineteen). Dynamic peer review helps forbid plagiarism as the scientific community volition already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in impress (19). Dynamic review also reduces the fourth dimension lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily past physicists (19). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is fourth dimension-tested and nonetheless highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to fault.
PEER REVIEW OF Open ACCESS JOURNALS
Open admission (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open admission journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly unlike versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This written report was performed in guild to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this written report were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall's List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do non have an effective peer review organisation in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can exist detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were 2 limitations of the report that made it incommunicable to accurately determine the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: 1) at that place was no command group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the simulated papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Periodical ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average credence charge per unit for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% (7). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are non accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected post-obit review (7). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the status of revision, while only 9% are accustomed without the request for revision (seven).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current arrangement of peer review, and merely 12% claimed to exist 'dissatisfied' (7). The large bulk, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (7). In that location was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific advice' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are 10 tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among young man scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take office in peer review. If 1 is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the piece of work of others as well, and put try into it.
two) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, only practise non leave advertising hominem comments. At that place is no benefit to beingness ruthless.
three) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to behave a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, reply to the link.
4) Be helpful
Advise how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
five) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions fatigued. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that information technology be professionally proof edited equally part of the review.
6) Exist timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors runway who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is tardily on completing a review. It is of import to be timely both out of respect for the periodical and the writer, as well as to non develop a reputation of being belatedly for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.
nine) Be open
Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any item paper to allow for dissimilar perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the newspaper is not in their area of expertise.
x) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical catamenia. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well equally for clarity. Virtually publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the newspaper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical catamenia of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to ameliorate.
In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author'due south shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the writer need and await (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides articulate explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer have time to think about the newspaper; they should read it once, wait at to the lowest degree a day, and then re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS likewise suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their work, also as to what edits they find helpful, in gild to larn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practise reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offering to peer review as often equally possible in order to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not go formal training in peer review, simply rather learn past observing their mentors. Co-ordinate to the APS, i acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (xi). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving scientific discipline (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If in that location is whatsoever department of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and non provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is non permitted to share any office of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject field thing) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to effort and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved past the expertise of one of their colleagues, the periodical must be informed of the colleague'south aid, and approving must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). Information technology is the task of the reviewer to make certain that the colleague assisting is enlightened of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
Common ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some mutual scientific errors to expect out for. Nearly of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is just support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, round reasoning, or pursuit of a piddling question (24). Information technology is also common for authors to suggest that ii variables are unlike considering the furnishings of 1 variable are statistically pregnant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than direct comparing the ii variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for information technology, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete land of the organisms studied (24). Another mutual mistake is the author's failure to ascertain terms or apply words with precision, as these practices tin can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements nigh specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that tin be applied to areas of scientific discipline outside the telescopic of the original written report, therefore it is better for reviewers to expect at the novelty of the thought, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the newspaper answered the specific question at paw (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is generally meliorate exercise for the peer reviewer to non focus on a checklist of things that could be incorrect, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each newspaper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic Thou. Hoppin, Jr. It can exist accessed through the American Physiological Society website nether the Peer Review Resources department.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is little prove that the process actually works, that it is really an effective screen for proficient quality scientific work, and that it really improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ended, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment past Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a newspaper that was near set for publication, and then sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted past reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did non spot whatsoever.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences oftentimes have any newspaper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can brand from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by 3 MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a elementary computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a briefing was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that 16 SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated past SCIgen were published by the United states Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to find SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/primary.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. Nevertheless, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically exist included equally a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense Nigh Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but simply a minority (38%) recall it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would crusade the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the assistance of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this upshot (27).
Information technology has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative enquiry ideas and assuming research questions that have the potential to make major advances and epitome shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will probable be rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may effect in rejection of innovative inquiry, as some studies may non seem especially strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that practise not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh cognition and new developments into the scientific community.
Another outcome that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to bear peer review compared to the vast number of papers that demand reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could non take reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a inquiry paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are beingness accepted equally a result. Information technology is at present possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could exist substandard (29). On a similar notation, the United states National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish whatever high quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more than controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the writer, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by young man practicing homeopaths, and thus is probable to be accustomed as apparent, though other scientists may find the newspaper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their brownie is challenged at a later date and they are afterward retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that accept been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for existence a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' time abroad from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a ways of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in 1 outcome (32). However, present virtually journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals accept very limited printing runs (32). Since in that location are no longer page limits to journals, any expert work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers tin can use to reject a paper (32). Nevertheless, some reviewers have used this excuse when they take personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published beginning.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 past Faculty of 1000 every bit an open admission journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the newspaper is in fact produced past a scientist and has non been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to forbid delays in new science reaching the academic community that are acquired by prolonged publication times (32). It besides aims to brand peer reviewing more than fair by eliminating whatever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review and then they can publish their own similar work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the proper name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision messages (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects manufactures to publish based but on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'touch on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). Information technology works on a "lifetime publishing program" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to mail service the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed past Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the fourth dimension lost in redundant reviewing tin can be put dorsum into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over xv million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, every bit papers get rejected from 1 journal and are afterwards submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often accept to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are ofttimes rejected multiple times before they discover the right lucifer. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in club to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the start, thus reducing the time before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the writer pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed past the three experts, the near appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the author in ane-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author tin and so submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report volition give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts accept recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review procedure, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers too receive feedback on their reviews and almost significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals likewise benefit, every bit they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their ain reviewers, which frequently finish upwardly rejected (35). This tin reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality manufactures to exist sent to their peer reviewers (35).
Co-ordinate to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is contained of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals will and so cull papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers equally a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's stance, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent equally a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not every bit a replacement (35). Mail service-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud just will provide an boosted measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has become primal in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or problems present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current bug with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof organization that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
three. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(eight): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, xi(ii): 217-226. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
seven. Ware Thousand. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." People's republic of china Summary Papers, 4:4-20. [Google Scholar]
eight. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ix. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): iii-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Air conditioning., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Writer Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar Yard. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(four): ane-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open up Access Scientific Journals." Open up Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager East, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "One of the Recognized Benefits of Peer Review Is"
Kommentar veröffentlichen