What Is a Peer-reviewed or Scholarly Article and Why Is It Important?
EJIFCC. 2014 October; 25(3): 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 Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill 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
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemical science (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been divers as a process of subjecting an writer's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their subject field and to command the broadcasting of inquiry data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are non published without prior good review. Despite its wide-spread use past 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 by the editors and/or reviewers. Inside the scientific customs, peer review has go an essential component of the academic writing procedure. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and depict accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts every bit a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific customs. The major reward of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed manufactures provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics fence that the peer review procedure stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not still been a foolproof system adult to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic ways of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the contempo explosion in online but/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with picayune or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its futurity potential. The current article 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.
Fundamental words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined equally "a process of subjecting an author'southward scholarly work, research 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, information technology acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, particularly in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are accounted suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to amend the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that demand correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was adult long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to take been used equally a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (two). The peer review process was first described by a medico named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his volume Ethics of the Physician (ii). In that location, he stated that physicians must have notes describing the state of their patients' medical weather condition upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to decide whether the medico had met the required standards of medical intendance. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the medico in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (two).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the full general public (3). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known every bit the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (3). His piece of work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (three). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish enquiry results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Regal Society is idea to be the first journal to formalize the peer review procedure in 1665 (5), however, it is important to annotation 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). Information technology did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and presently 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 matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The written report of their identity is not known to the writer." (7). The Imperial Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and adult the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (vi).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increment in scientific research during this period (7). It is now used non only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but too to determine which papers sufficiently meet the periodical'south standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is at present standard practice by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
Affect OF THE PEER REVIEW Procedure
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication organisation because it effectively subjects an author's work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce loftier quality research that will accelerate the field. Peer review besides supports and maintains integrity and actuality in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the bookish community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (viii). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) simply considers journals that are peer-reviewed every bit candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review procedure begins when a scientist completes a research written report and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the written report. The scientist and then submits this paper to a suitable periodical that specializes in a relevant research field, a pace referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the paper to ensure that the bailiwick matter 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 past a credible source, they volition 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 Figure 1). The part of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an constructive 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 procedure
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 design, and the ceremoniousness of the methods used. The reviewer too 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 research. Additionally, reviewers place any scientific errors and references that are missing or wrong. 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 discussion in social club to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, propose areas that tin can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the written report'southward telescopic (9). If the newspaper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, equally well as past scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and upward-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the all-time quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer volition conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review past the Publishing Enquiry Consortium (Mainland china) (seven). Journals will frequently have a pool of reviewers with various backgrounds to allow for many unlike perspectives. They will as well continue a rather large reviewer bank, and then that reviewers do non become burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Practice REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to acquit peer reviews and the procedure takes considerable try, 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 have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep upwardly-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective style to do and then. Some scientists utilise peer review every bit an opportunity to advance their ain research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read nearly new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are not bad on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who bear witness dedication to the periodical are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a take a chance to become enlightened of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the textile. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable every bit it is often noted on one'due south resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their functioning for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Great TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense Nearly Scientific discipline at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, plant that 90% of reviewers were neat to peer review (12). I third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to 5 papers per yr, and an additional i 3rd of respondents were happy to review up to 10.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW 1 PAPER?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), withal, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense Nigh Scientific discipline" survey claims to accept taken more than 100 hours to review their concluding newspaper (12).
HOW TO Make up one's mind IF A Periodical IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). Afterwards logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers tin exist entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is nonetheless actively publishing. The blackness book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
Every bit previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the bailiwick thing is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature browse of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, word, 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 title is descriptive plenty, and ensures that information technology is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford Academy Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a pregnant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article volition exist of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while xiii% of respondents claimed to always be able to practice so (xiv).
The abstruse is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstruse is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consequent with the rest of the paper. The NAR report indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would exist of interest to them based on the abstract lonely 60-80% of the fourth dimension, while 32% could judge an commodity based on the abstract eighty-100% of the fourth dimension (14). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is oft used to assess the value of an commodity.
The introduction of a scientific newspaper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to place why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the study'south purpose and scope, briefly describes the full general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (xv). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information 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 likewise includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can exist used information technology to echo the experiment (xv). Methods are written in the by tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the advisable methods were used to reply the research question, and if they were written with sufficient particular. If information is missing from the methods department, information technology is the peer reviewer's 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 sentence, bias or interpretation (15). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers too confirm that the text is 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 make sure that table and figure captions are advisable both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures nowadays the information accurately.
The discussion section is where the information is analyzed. Hither, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the enquiry question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (15). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers likewise ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, whatever anomalies in the results, the relationship of the written report to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.
The references are found at the end of the newspaper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to writer final proper name, or numbered co-ordinate to the club in which they announced in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used accordingly, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they make up one's mind whether it meets the periodical's standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the superlative 25% of papers in its field (16) to make up one's mind priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in club of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the chance of success in the peer review procedure, the author must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must besides be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Different TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is more often than not conducted in 1 of 3 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 unmarried-blind review, the reviewer'southward identity is kept private, only the writer's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open up peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being devil-may-care, or procrastinating completion of the review (two). Information technology encourages reviewers to be open and honest without existence disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amidst authors (2). On the other mitt, open peer review can also foreclose reviewers from being honest for fearfulness of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in club to be polite (ii). This is particularly true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer's work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study by the Mainland china, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Unmarried-blind peer review is past far the nigh common. In the PRC written report, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with unmarried-blind peer review (7). This method is advantageous equally 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 (2). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, notwithstanding, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their ain research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their ain information get-go (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from beingness biased confronting the writer based on their land of origin or previous work (ii). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors take had experience with double-bullheaded peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, specially in niche areas of research, it tin can sometimes be piece of cake for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, discipline thing or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author'south identity from peer reviewers, as is the example in double-bullheaded review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for twoscore manuscripts (17). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted past McNutt et al. had different results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (xviii). Although Justice et al. argued that this departure was too pocket-sized to exist consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a unlike field of study matter (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 meliorate review quality (17).
In add-on to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, in that location 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 at present published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Cardinal take enabled scientists to mail comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is some other journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Just viii% of authors surveyed in the PRC written report had experience with mail-publication review (7). Some other experimental course 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 process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews equally the commodity is being adult (xix). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already exist familiar with the piece of work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in impress (xix). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (19). These culling forms of peer review are still united nations-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to mistake.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN Access JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely mode (20). Nevertheless, at that place can be issues regarding the peer review process of open admission journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a simulated author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine 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 listing of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a imitation paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of commodity itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this written report highlights useful information on the issues associated with lower quality publishers that exercise not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the report results to all OA journals, which tin exist detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. At that place were two limitations of the report that fabricated it impossible to accurately determine the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: i) there was no command group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the imitation papers were sent to a not-randomized pick of journals, resulting in bias.
Periodical ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is well-nigh 50% (7). 20 percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (7). Of the fifty% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while just nine% are accepted without the asking for revision (vii).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organisation
Based on a recent survey by the Red china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the electric current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (vii). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is profoundly helped past peer review' (vii). At that place was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are ten tips on how to exist an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an adept on the bailiwick (22):
1) Be professional person
Peer review is a mutual responsibleness amidst fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the bookish community, to have part in peer review. If i is to await others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others besides, and put endeavor into it.
2) Exist pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, propose that information technology be rejected, just exercise not go out ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the bulk of journals will provide a link to either have or refuse. Practise not respond to the electronic mail, respond to the link.
four) Exist helpful
Advise how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their newspaper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or controlling. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic bug. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific noesis and commenting on the brownie of the enquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as role of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and volition know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic near the work presented, the changes they suggest and their function. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
eight) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Exist sensitive and respectful with discussion choice and tone in a review.
ix) Exist open
Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will effort to get both specialised and full general reviewers for any particular paper to let for dissimilar 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 expanse 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 as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide curt guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Brainstorm with an overview of the proposed improvements; and then provide feedback on the paper construction, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical catamenia of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. So provide feedback on style, vocalization and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In add-on, the American Physiology Social club (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author demand and expect (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on fourth dimension, and that information technology provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To exist helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. It is suggested that the reviewer accept fourth dimension to think about the paper; they should read it one time, await at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review (eleven). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, besides as to what edits they find helpful, in guild to acquire how to peer review finer (eleven). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students do reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offering to peer review every bit often as possible in order to become skilled at the process (xi). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practise not become formal training in peer review, but rather learn past observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore endeavour to strengthen relationships with periodical editors by offering to review manuscripts (xi). 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 process in improving scientific discipline (11).
The peer reviewer should but comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is any department of the manuscript they feel they are non 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 any office of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject thing) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they tin can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to call back that if a paper can exist improved by the expertise of ane of their colleagues, the periodical must be informed of the colleague's help, 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 order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague profitable is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). In one case the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, in that location are some common scientific errors to await out for. Virtually of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only back up for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a piddling question (24). It is too common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically meaning while the furnishings of the other variable are not, rather than straight comparison the ii variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practice non control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the writer'south failure to ascertain terms or employ words with precision, every bit these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are besides a mutual occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can exist practical to areas of science exterior the scope of the original study, therefore it is meliorate for reviewers to wait at the novelty of the thought, 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 it is generally meliorate practise for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, only rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously enquire themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed clarification of how to conduct peer review finer is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic Chiliad. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website nether the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that at that place is little prove that the process actually works, that information technology is really 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 furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics likewise debate that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this indicate, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and and then sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Some other 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 ofttimes take any newspaper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make 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 simple computer programme chosen SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that 16 SCIgen nonsense papers had been used past the German language academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the The states Constitute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé adult a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is oft criticized for being unable to accurately discover plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically exist 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 just 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 aid of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue (27).
It has as well been argued that peer review has lowered enquiry quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative enquiry ideas and bold research questions that take the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, every bit they believe that this work volition probable exist rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative enquiry, equally some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, notwithstanding 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 not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the evolution of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh cognition and new developments into the scientific community.
Another result that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a express number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that demand reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.three million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), only the number of competent peer reviewers bachelor could not 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 every bit a event. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a like 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 author, which can crusade bias in their review. For case, a paper on homeopathy is probable to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to exist nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are later on retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that accept been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new cognition into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such every bit research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Managing director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a ways of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in i event (32). Notwithstanding, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to impress, and many journals take very limited press runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any adept work can and should be published. Consequently, beingness selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can utilize to decline a newspaper (32). Nonetheless, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own inquiry published first.
Contempo INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 past Faculty of grand as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (later on an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and so conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused past prolonged publication times (32). It also aims to make peer reviewing more off-white by eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they tin publish their own similar 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 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based just on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'impact', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). Information technology works on a "lifetime publishing program" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open up peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-impress review service chosen PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an contained peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to subtract redundancy in the peer review process then that the fourth dimension lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each yr to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one periodical and are afterwards submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are oft rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in society to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the kickoff, thus reducing the time earlier their newspaper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-bullheaded peer review by 3 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 iii experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is adamant based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The newspaper is returned to the writer in ane-2 weeks with the Rubriq Written report (35). The author can so submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Study will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the newspaper as it shows that three experts take recommended the newspaper to them (35). Rubriq besides has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes information technology consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and about significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also benefit, equally they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their ain reviewers, which oft end up rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles 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 volition be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers every bit a drove (32). In this process, peer review and private journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's stance, mail service-publication peer review is likely to go more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but non as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will non serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier too believes that every bit journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there volition be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
Terminal REMARKS
Peer review has go primal in assisting editors in selecting apparent, high quality, novel and interesting research 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 still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has non yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the electric current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system 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, 20(viii): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
four. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini 1000. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, xi(two): 217-226. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Ware M. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, 4:4-twenty. [Google Scholar]
eight. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crunch?" 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(ane): iii-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Air conditioning., 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 Furnishings of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xix. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Inquiry." Biology and Medicine, one(4): 1-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open up Access Scientific Journals." Open up Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Agape of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemical science and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "What Is a Peer-reviewed or Scholarly Article and Why Is It Important?"
Post a Comment