Peer Review Is a Process in Which a Research Analysis Is Reviewed by
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, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
aneClinical 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, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
iiiChair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly piece of work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accustomed high standards of their discipline and to command the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use past nearly journals, the peer review process has besides 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 customs, peer review has get an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and describe accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts equally a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific customs. The major reward of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific cognition is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics debate that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has non yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, nonetheless, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online simply/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a big number of scientific manufactures with piffling or no peer review. This poses meaning take chances to advances in scientific noesis and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open admission
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined every bit "a procedure of subjecting an author's scholarly piece of work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (one). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts every bit a filter to ensure that only high quality research 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 deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review procedure is thought to have been used equally a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review process was get-go described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syrian arab republic, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Medico (ii). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the country of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the dr. in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to exist distributed to the full general public (3). At this time, it became more than important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly bachelor, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the piece of work Novum Organum, where he described what somewhen became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (three). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Regal Club were the start scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is idea to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (five), however, 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 accept long for the peer review process to evolve, and soon thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the enquiry study earlier publication. The Royal 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 co-ordinate to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (seven). The Royal Club of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts earlier they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the 2nd World War, at to the lowest degree partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this menstruation (7). It is at present used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically audio, but besides to make up one's mind which papers sufficiently run across the journal'southward standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is at present standard practice by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential role of determining the brownie and quality of work submitted.
Touch on OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication organisation considering information technology effectively subjects an author'due south piece of work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality inquiry that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or argument is mostly not accepted by the academic customs unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (viii). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact 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 research written report and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental pattern, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist and then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a pace referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the newspaper to ensure that the subject affair is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers laissez passer this initial evaluation. If the journal editors experience the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will ship the newspaper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this procedure is summarized in Figure 1). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review procedure. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that at that place 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 information technology to evaluate the validity of the scientific discipline, the quality of the experimental blueprint, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the piece of work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the inquiry. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor volition mediate author-referee word in gild to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that tin can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the study'south scope (9). If the newspaper is accepted, as per proffer by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific periodical. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure one.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well equally by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject area areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Oft, the young reviewers are the most responsive and evangelize the all-time quality reviews, though this is not ever the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per yr, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Inquiry Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals will often have a puddle of reviewers with various backgrounds to let for many dissimilar perspectives. They will also keep a rather big reviewer bank, and then that reviewers practise not get burnt out, overwhelmed or fourth dimension constrained from reviewing multiple manufactures simultaneously.
WHY Do REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically non paid to acquit peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees take to review at all. Some feel an academic 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 equally well. Reviewers may also accept personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to go along up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective mode to do so. Some scientists apply peer review as an opportunity to advance their own enquiry as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are corking on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign role of their community, as sometimes reviewers who prove dedication to the journal are later hired every bit editors. Some scientists see peer review equally a take chances to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be start to develop new insights from the cloth. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can exist desirable as information technology is often noted on one's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their functioning for promotions (eleven). Peer reviewing can also exist an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Swell TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the clemency Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the Academy of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). I 3rd of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upwards to v papers per year, and an boosted i tertiary of respondents were happy to review upwardly to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT Take TO REVIEW ONE Newspaper?
On boilerplate, it takes approximately half-dozen hours to review one paper (12), still, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Make up one's mind IF A Journal IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). Later logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers tin be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the periodical, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The blackness 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 will and 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 commonly 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 study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the championship is descriptive plenty, and ensures that information technology is articulate and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published past the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant part in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually guess whether an article will exist of interest to them based on the championship and the author, while thirteen% of respondents claimed to always be able to do and so (14).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the groundwork or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstruse alone 60-lxxx% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract lone is ofttimes used to assess the value of an commodity.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in guild to place why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill up (15). The introduction identifies the study'southward 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 background data on the enquiry 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 department should be detailed enough that it tin be used information technology to echo the experiment (15). Methods are written in the by tense and in the active vox. The peer reviewer assesses whether the advisable methods were used to answer the inquiry question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to place what details need to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or estimation (15). This section tin include statistical tests performed on the data, also every bit figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient item, and determines their brownie. Reviewers also ostend 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 sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The word department is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the inquiry question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This department may likewise provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future inquiry (15). The discussion should finish 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 advisable interpretation of the results. Reviewers likewise ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, whatsoever anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and applied applications of the report.
The references are institute at the finish of the paper, and list all of the data sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the commendation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the lodge in which they announced in the newspaper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is conspicuously written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the unabridged manuscript, they make up one's mind whether it meets the journal's standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the meridian 25% of papers in its field (sixteen) 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 newspaper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and acquire from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review procedure is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer'southward identity is kept individual, but the writer'due south identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and writer are kept anonymous. Open up peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without existence disrespectful. Open reviewing as well discourages plagiarism amongst authors (2). On the other hand, 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 peculiarly true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer'due south piece of work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their relationship with a superior (two). 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 written report by the Prc, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open up peer review (vii).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most mutual. In the Mainland china study, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-blind peer review (7). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more probable to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (2). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author (two). The chief disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects like to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work (2). This allows the newspaper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-bullheaded peer review is a good idea (12), and the Prc 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 research, it can sometimes exist piece of cake for the reviewer to make up one's mind the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or cocky-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the writer's identity from peer reviewers, every bit is the case in double-blind review, is by and large thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking writer identity afflicted 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 author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived departure in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was oft unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had unlike results (eighteen). 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 exist consequential, their study targeted but biomedical journals, and the results cannot exist generalized to journals of a different subject affair (17). Additionally, there were issues masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In addition to open up, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. Equally many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to annotate on these papers, appoint in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Fundamental take enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the People's republic of china study had experience with postal service-publication review (7). 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 conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (nineteen). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous procedure, which allows the public to run across both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism every bit the scientific community volition already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in impress (xix). Dynamic review too reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An case of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed past Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily past physicists (xix). These alternative forms of peer review are nevertheless un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is fourth dimension-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review take their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF Open up ACCESS JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular every bit they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Yet, there tin be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly dissimilar versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake writer, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in club to decide whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparing to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Admission Journals (DOAJ) and Biall'south List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake newspaper, 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 report highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do non take an effective peer review arrangement in place, the commodity also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which tin exist detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. In that location were two limitations of the study that fabricated it impossible to accurately decide the relationship between peer review and OA journals: i) at that place was no command group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal Acceptance RATES
Based on a contempo survey, the boilerplate acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about fifty% (vii). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (7). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accustomed with the condition of revision, while only nine% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey past the Red china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current organisation of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The big majority, 85%, agreed with the argument that 'scientific communication is greatly helped past peer review' (7). There was a similarly high level of back up (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific advice' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The post-obit are ten tips on how to exist an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject field (22):
1) Exist professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among young man scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to accept role in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their piece of work, they should commit to reviewing the piece of work of others as well, and put attempt into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the newspaper is of depression quality, suggest that information technology exist rejected, but exercise not go out advertisement hominem comments. At that place is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to enquire them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either have or pass up. Do not reply to the email, answer to the link.
iv) Be helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their newspaper. A review should guide the author on what is skillful and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
5) Exist 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 bug. Instead, focus on calculation value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as office of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rails who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. Information technology is of import to exist timely both out of respect for the journal and the writer, as well as to not develop a reputation of existence late 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 loftier 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.
9) Be open
Remember that both specialists and generalists tin provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to go both specialised and general reviewers for whatsoever item newspaper to let for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their surface area of expertise.
x) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors likewise equally for clarity. Nearly publishers provide curt guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; and then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In improver, the American Physiology Gild (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor'south and author'southward shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to support recommendations. To exist helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to retrieve about the paper; they should read it one time, wait at least a day, and so re-read information technology before writing the review (xi). The APS too suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, too as to what edits they detect helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and request a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offering to peer review as oftentimes as possible in order to become skilled at the process (xi). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do non get formal preparation in peer review, simply rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore attempt to strengthen relationships with periodical editors by offer to review manuscripts (11). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this procedure in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable near (23). If there is whatever section of the manuscript they feel they are non qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide farther feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes beyond something they are unsure of in the newspaper, they tin consult the literature to try and proceeds insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved past the expertise of i of their colleagues, the journal must exist informed of the colleague's aid, and approval must exist obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must exist identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in guild to ensure that he/she is accordingly credited for whatever contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to brand sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). In one case the review is complete, the manuscript must exist destroyed and cannot exist saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
Common ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some mutual scientific errors to look out for. Nigh of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proposition of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is also common for authors to suggest that 2 variables are dissimilar because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not command for it, or forget to include of import details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical country of the organisms studied (24). Some other mutual error is the writer'due south failure to ascertain terms or employ words with precision, equally these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements almost specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce cognition that can be applied to areas of scientific discipline outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although information technology is important to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather advisedly identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously enquire 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 past Frederic Yard. Hoppin, Jr. It tin can be accessed through the American Physiological Order website under the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that at that place is fiddling evidence that the process really works, that information technology is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics besides contend that peer review is non effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted viii deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (vii). 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 (xvi%) did not spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the procedure is non conducted thoroughly past scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept whatever paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, considering the more papers they accept, the more than money they can brand from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a elementary estimator plan called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Later on, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used past the German bookish publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the U.s.a. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations take been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to notice SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not have nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/principal.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. All the same, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but merely a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of periodical editors in 2009 to help better this issue (27).
It has besides 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 inquiry ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and image shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will probable exist rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may event in rejection of innovative inquiry, every bit some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may exist capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether different circumstances, or in the light of new data (28). Scientists that practice not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to comport peer review compared to the vast number of papers that demand reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (ane.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), just the number of competent peer reviewers available could non have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a outcome. It is now possible to publish any newspaper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a like note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed past people who are interested and hold like views or opinions as the writer, which can crusade bias in their review. For instance, a newspaper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accustomed as apparent, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are afterward retracted. Retraction Watch is a website defended to revealing papers that have been retracted later publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the broadcasting of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such equally research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Manager for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue (32). However, nowadays near journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited press runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work tin and should exist published. Consequently, beingness selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (32). Nonetheless, some reviewers have used this alibi when they take personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published commencement.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 equally an open admission journal that immediately publishes papers (afterward an initial check to ensure that the newspaper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent postal service-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to foreclose delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused past prolonged publication times (32). Information technology also aims to make peer reviewing more than fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work beginning (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the proper noun of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly periodical for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects manufactures to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'impact', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ likewise encourages open peer review, and authors are given the choice to post the total 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 newspaper drafts are reviewed earlier existence sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an contained peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to amend the peer review organization (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 one thousand thousand hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, every bit papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often take to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are oftentimes rejected multiple times earlier they find the right match. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to assistance authors cull the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the get-go, thus reducing the time before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates nether an writer-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three skilful 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 by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The newspaper is returned to the writer in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The writer can then submit their newspaper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Report fastened. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the newspaper as it shows that 3 experts accept recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq besides has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their fourth dimension (35). Journals too benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which oft end upward rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow merely higher-quality articles 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 independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will so choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's stance, mail-publication peer review is probable to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but non as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an boosted measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that every bit 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 cardinal in profitable editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting enquiry papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of whatever errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process even so has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not withal been proposed or developed. Researchers accept begun and must proceed to look for ways of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a total-proof organization that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
iii. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, twenty(viii): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Thousand. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Claret Transfus, eleven(2): 217-226. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware M. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." China Summary Papers, 4:four-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
nine. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): 3-vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Air-conditioning., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Meliorate Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(iii):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eighteen. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Furnishings of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(ten):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar K. (2009). "A Review of the Review Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Inquiry." Biological science and Medicine, 1(4): 1-sixteen. [Google Scholar]
twenty. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Admission Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, ane(ane): 49-51. [PMC free 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 Push button: How to Go 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 Commodity." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles 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 "Peer Review Is a Process in Which a Research Analysis Is Reviewed by"
ارسال یک نظر