I Look Forward to Reviewing the Other Categories as Well
EJIFCC. 2014 October; 25(three): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
oneClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
oneClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
1Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a procedure of subjecting an author's scholarly work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to run across the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the broadcasting of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior adept review. Despite its broad-spread employ by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias past the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing procedure. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals reply meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has go increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts equally a filter to forbid this piece of work from reaching the scientific community. 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 of import. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system adult to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the contempo 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 risk to advances in scientific noesis and its hereafter potential. The current commodity summarizes the peer review process, 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, periodical, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field" (i). Peer review is intended to serve two master purposes. Firstly, it acts every bit a filter to ensure that only high quality inquiry is published, particularly in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the report. 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 meliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and too place any errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is idea to have been used as a method of evaluating written piece of work since ancient Greece (ii). The peer review process was first described past a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Dr. (two). 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 decide whether the md had met the required standards of medical intendance. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (two).
The invention of the printing printing in 1453 immune written documents to exist distributed to the general public (three). At this time, it became more than important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Salary wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the outset universal method for generating and assessing new science (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English language Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish inquiry results (four). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Order is idea to be the first periodical to formalize the peer review procedure in 1665 (5), 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 fourth dimension information technology did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (vi). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and before long thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Imperial Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review procedure, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject thing to those members who are most versed in these matters. The written report of their identity is not known to the author." (vii). The Royal Society of London adopted this review process 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 course has adult immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this menses (seven). It is at present used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, merely also to decide which papers sufficiently meet the journal's standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
Touch on OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has go the foundation of the scholarly publication organization because it effectively subjects an writer'southward work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, information technology encourages authors to strive to produce loftier quality enquiry that will accelerate the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advocacy of science. A scientific hypothesis or argument is generally not accustomed by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed periodical (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) but considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Affect 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 Procedure
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this newspaper to a suitable periodical that specializes in a relevant inquiry field, a step referred to equally pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that information technology fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the newspaper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Effigy one). The role of the editor is to select the nearly 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 too ensure that there are no conflicts of involvement involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental blueprint, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer too assesses the significance of the enquiry, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the enquiry. 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 will mediate author-referee discussion in order to analyze the priority of sure referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the study's telescopic (9). If the paper is accepted, as per proposition by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production phase, where it is tweaked and formatted past the editors, and finally published in the scientific periodical. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized noesis on the content of the manuscript, besides as by scientists with a more general cognition base. Peer reviewers tin can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the field of study areas that the periodical covers. Reviewers tin range from young and up-and-coming researchers to one-time masters in the field. Oftentimes, the young reviewers are the most responsive and evangelize the all-time quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will deport approximately eight reviews per yr, co-ordinate to a report on peer review by the Publishing Enquiry Consortium (Cathay) (seven). Journals volition oft have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to permit for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer banking concern, so that reviewers practise not get burnt out, overwhelmed or fourth dimension constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Do REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, and then the question is raised every bit to what incentive referees have 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 equally well. Reviewers may likewise accept personal contacts with editors, and may desire to aid as much as possible. Others review to proceed up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an constructive way to exercise so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read near new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who prove dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus exist beginning to develop new insights from the fabric. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing tin exist desirable every bit it is often noted on i'southward resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also exist an effective style for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional ane third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.
HOW LONG DOES It TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one newspaper (12), however, 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 Near Science" survey claims to take taken more than 100 hours to review their final paper (12).
HOW TO Make up one's mind IF A Journal IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides data on over 300,000 periodicals, including data regarding which journals are peer reviewed (thirteen). Afterwards logging into the organisation using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers can exist entered into the search bar. The database provides the championship, publisher, and state of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book 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 first determine if the discipline affair is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer volition and so consider whether the inquiry question is important and original, a procedure which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review ordinarily follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The championship must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the report. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford Academy Press in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a pregnant part in determining reader interest, every bit 72% of respondents said they could usually estimate whether an commodity will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while thirteen% of respondents claimed to ever be able to do 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 report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the residue of the newspaper. The NAR study indicated that xl% of respondents could determine whether an commodity would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone lx-fourscore% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often 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 near the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in noesis the study aims to fill (xv). 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 background data on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are conspicuously identifiable.
The methods department 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 be detailed enough that information technology can exist used it to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the by tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to reply the enquiry question, and if they were written with sufficient item. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer'due south job to identify 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 interpretation (15). This section tin can include statistical tests performed on the data, too equally 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 confirm that the text is consequent 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 brand sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the information is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (fifteen). The word 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 future research (15). The give-and-take should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the give-and-take is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the give-and-take addresses the limitations of the written report, any anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and applied applications of the study.
The references are constitute at the end of the paper, and listing all of the information 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 society according to author last proper noun, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. 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 clearly written and if the content seems logical. Afterward thoroughly reading through the unabridged manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal's standards for publication,
and whether it falls inside the peak 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 social club of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the adventure of success in the peer review procedure, the writer must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The writer must likewise be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and larn from mistakes fabricated in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, unmarried-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open up review, both the writer of the paper and the peer reviewer know i another'due south identity. Alternatively, in unmarried-blind review, the reviewer'due south identity is kept private, but the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept bearding. Open peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, beingness careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amid authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review can also forbid reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in lodge to be polite (2). This is peculiarly true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author's piece of work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense Most Science survey, editors find that completely open up reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study by the Prc, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (seven).
Single-blind peer review is by far the near mutual. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-bullheaded peer review (7). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (two). This allows the reviewer to make contained decisions without the influence of the author (2). The primary disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, yet, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to filibuster completing the review in lodge to publish their ain data first (2).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against 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 Almost Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the Mainland china survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-bullheaded peer review (vii). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, particularly in niche areas of research, it tin sometimes exist piece of cake for the reviewer to decide the identity of the author based on writing style, subject thing or cocky-commendation, and thus, impart bias (two).
Masking the writer's identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study past 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 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived difference in quality betwixt the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, particularly with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had dissimilar results (18). In this instance, blinding was successful 73% of the fourth dimension, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (eighteen). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different bailiwick matter (17). Additionally, there were bug 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, unmarried-blind and double-bullheaded peer review, at that place are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to annotate on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central accept enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another periodical launched with this experimental grade of peer review. Simply eight% of authors surveyed in the Mainland china study had feel with post-publication review (7). Another experimental form of peer review chosen 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 (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews equally the article is being developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps foreclose plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in impress (19). Dynamic review as well reduces the time lag betwixt manuscript submission and publishing. An case 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 notwithstanding un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review take their advantages and deficiencies, and all are decumbent to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they let the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely fashion (20). Nevertheless, 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 different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written past a simulated author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to make up one's mind whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed earlier publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study 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 accepted a false 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 not have an effective peer review arrangement in place, the article likewise generalizes the report results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the full general perception of OA journals. At that place were ii limitations of the report that made information technology incommunicable to accurately determine the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: one) in that location was no control 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 recent survey, the average credence rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is most fifty% (vii). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are non accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (7). Of the fifty% accepted, 41% are accustomed with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision (vii).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey by the Red china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The big majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (7). There was a similarly loftier level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides command in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an good on the subject (22):
i) Exist professional person
Peer review is a common responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the bookish customs, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others every bit well, and put effort into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the newspaper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but practise not leave advertizing hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to inquire them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or refuse. Do not respond to the electronic mail, respond to the link.
four) Be helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs piece of work from the reviewer'due south perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the part of a scientific peer, non an editor for proofreading or determination-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic problems. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the enquiry conducted and conclusions fatigued. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it exist professionally proof edited equally part of the review.
half-dozen) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is belatedly on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, besides as to not 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 advise and their role. Peer reviewers may prepare the bar too loftier for the newspaper 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 give-and-take pick and tone in a review.
9) Exist open
Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to become both specialised and full general reviewers for whatever particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has adamant they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors also as for clarity. Most 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 information sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. And then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
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 writer's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the writer need and expect (xi). 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 be helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer take fourth dimension to think nearly the paper; they should read it one time, wait at least a 24-hour interval, then re-read information technology earlier writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to larn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. Information technology is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in social club to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do non become formal preparation in peer review, only rather larn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore effort to strengthen relationships with periodical editors by offering to review manuscripts (eleven). 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 procedure in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should merely comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable most (23). If in that location is whatever department of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may exist more knowledgeable in the subject affair) 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 of import for scientists to call back that if a newspaper tin exist improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague's aid, and approval 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 social club to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for whatsoever contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review procedure (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must exist destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
Mutual ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proffer of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, round reasoning, or pursuit of a niggling question (24). It is besides common for authors to suggest that two variables are unlike considering the furnishings of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than direct comparison the 2 variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a misreckoning variable and practice non control for information technology, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical country of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the author'southward failure to define terms or employ words with precision, as these practices tin mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be practical to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is ameliorate 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 paw (24). Although it is of import to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better do 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 ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review finer is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It tin be accessed through the American Physiological Society website nether the Peer Review Resource section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that at that place is lilliputian evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an constructive screen for good quality scientific work, and that it really improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 written report 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 also argue that peer review is not constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly gear up for publication, so 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 by 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 process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often have any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more than money they tin 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 simple computer program chosen SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a briefing was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the High german academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated past SCIgen were published by the Us Plant of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations take been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to observe SCIgen papers and has made information technology freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do non accept nonsense work in the future. It is bachelor at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/chief.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 equally a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Scientific discipline, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) just only a minority (38%) remember it is capable. The bookish 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 help of periodical editors in 2009 to help improve this result (27).
It 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 research ideas and bold 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 upshot in rejection of innovative research, equally some studies may non seem especially strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether different circumstances, or in the low-cal of new information (28). Scientists that do non 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 at that place are a express number of people that are competent to deport peer review compared to the vast number of papers that demand reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (one.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are existence accustomed as a result. Information technology is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the newspaper or journal itself could exist substandard (29). On a similar note, the Usa National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves equally "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 by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the writer, which can cause bias in their review. For case, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed past boyfriend practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to exist accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the newspaper 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 dedicated to revealing papers that take been retracted later on 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 noesis into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-action that takes scientists' time away 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 means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one consequence (32). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs (32). Since there are no longer folio limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a periodical is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such equally getting their ain enquiry published first.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Kinesthesia of one thousand equally an open up access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial bank check to ensure that the newspaper is in fact produced by a scientist and has non been plagiarised), then conducts transparent mail service-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to foreclose delays in new scientific discipline reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). Information technology too aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they tin can publish their ain like work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 equally an open up access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects manufactures to publish based just 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 too encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published commodity (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-impress 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 organization (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review procedure so that the time lost in redundant reviewing tin can be put dorsum into enquiry (35). According to Keith Collier, over xv one thousand thousand hours are lost each twelvemonth to redundant peer review, as papers become rejected from one journal and are after submitted to a less prestigious periodical where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are ofttimes rejected multiple times earlier they detect the right match. This procedure could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in society to help authors choose the periodical that is best suited for their manuscript from the first, thus reducing the time before their newspaper is published (35). Rubriq operates nether an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three proficient academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author'due south fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). In one case the manuscript has been reviewed past the three experts, the most appropriate periodical 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 Study (35). The author can and so submit their paper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Study will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that 3 experts have recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq also 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 time (35). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often cease upwards rejected (35). This tin reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality manufactures to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
According 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 have place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they observe relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and private journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, postal service-publication peer review is probable to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, simply not as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of bear on (35). Collier likewise 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 fundamental in assisting editors in selecting apparent, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of whatsoever errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more than suitable screening method for scientific papers has non yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to wait for means of addressing the current problems with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures but quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(viii): 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, 11(2): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware 1000. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, iv:4-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(one): 3-seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author 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(ten):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar Thousand. (2009). "A Review of the Review Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(iv): 1-xvi. [Google Scholar]
xx. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, i(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Agape of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):lx-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 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]
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 "I Look Forward to Reviewing the Other Categories as Well"
Post a Comment