What Does It Mean When We Say This Scientific Study Was Published in a Peer-reviewed Journal?
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
twoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemical science (IFCC), Milan, Italian republic
Abstract
Peer review has been divers every bit a process of subjecting an author's scholarly piece of work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Information technology functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted loftier standards of their discipline and to control the broadcasting of research information to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are non published without prior skillful review. Despite its wide-spread utilise by nearly journals, the peer review procedure has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias past the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has get an essential component of the bookish writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals reply meaningful inquiry questions and depict authentic conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this piece of work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review procedure is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is specially important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics fence that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not notwithstanding been a foolproof system developed to accept the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online simply/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant run a risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The electric 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.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, periodical, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined every bit "a process of subjecting an writer's scholarly piece of work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (i). Peer review is intended to serve 2 primary purposes. Firstly, it acts every bit a filter to ensure that simply high quality inquiry is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the written report. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to meliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that demand correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review procedure is thought to have been used equally a method of evaluating written work since ancient Hellenic republic (2). 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 volume Ethics of the Doc (2). There, he stated that physicians must accept notes describing the state of their patients' medical atmospheric condition upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to decide whether the dr. had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical quango deemed that the advisable standards were not met, the dr. in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (ii).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (iii). At this time, it became more than important to regulate the quality of the written textile that became publicly available, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Salary wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known every bit the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (three). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (iii). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English language Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Social club were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the get-go journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), however, it is of import to notation that peer review was initially introduced to help editors determine which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (half-dozen). It did non take long for the peer review procedure to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research written report earlier publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject affair to those members who are nearly versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (seven). The Regal 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 (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized course has adult immensely since the Second Globe War, at to the lowest degree partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period (7). Information technology is at present used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but as well to determine which papers sufficiently run into the journal'due south standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is at present standard exercise by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential function of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has get the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it finer subjects an writer'southward piece of work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that volition advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advocacy of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted past the academic community unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (viii). The Found for Scientific Information (ISI) just considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review procedure begins when a scientist completes a research report and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist so submits this newspaper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a stride 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 periodical, 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 past a credible source, they will ship the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Effigy i). The role of the editor is to select the nigh advisable 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 effective and timely manner. They must as well ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it advisedly and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental pattern, and the ceremoniousness of the methods used. The reviewer as well assesses the significance of the enquiry, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field past evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify 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 earlier publication in the periodical. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (ix). If the newspaper is accepted, as per proffer past the peer reviewer, the newspaper goes into the production stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted past the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure i.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized cognition on the content of the manuscript, as well equally by scientists with a more than general knowledge base. Peer reviewers tin exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the bailiwick areas that the journal covers. Reviewers tin range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Oftentimes, the young reviewers are the about responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not ever the case. On average, a reviewer will deport approximately eight reviews per year, co-ordinate to a study on peer review past the Publishing Inquiry Consortium (Red china) (seven). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to permit for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers practice 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, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have 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, and so they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to continue upwards-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective mode to practise so. Some scientists use peer review equally an opportunity to accelerate their own inquiry as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on edifice associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, equally sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists run across peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be commencement to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career evolution, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on i's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'southward involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing tin also be an effective mode 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 Well-nigh Scientific discipline at the British Science Festival at the Academy of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). One tertiary of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one tertiary of respondents were happy to review up to 10.
HOW LONG DOES Information technology Take TO REVIEW Ane Newspaper?
On boilerplate, it takes approximately vi hours to review i paper (12), nonetheless, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. I in every 100 participants in the "Sense Well-nigh Scientific discipline" survey claims to have taken more than than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Make up one's mind IF A Journal IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides data on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). Later logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers tin can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the periodical, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black volume 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 volition first determine if the subject affair 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 exist 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, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the written report. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive plenty, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published past the Oxford University Printing in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader involvement, equally 72% of respondents said they could unremarkably judge whether an article volition be of interest to them based on the championship and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to practise so (14).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the groundwork or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstruse is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that forty% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstruse alone lx-eighty% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time (xiv). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is oft used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the inquiry question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in club to identify why the question being studied is of involvement to the scientific customs, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (xv). The introduction identifies the study'south purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (fifteen). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background data on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be 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 answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, information technology is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details need to exist added.
The results department is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (xv). This section can include statistical tests performed on the information, as well equally 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 also ostend that the text is consistent with the data presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer volition also make sure that table and effigy captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The give-and-take section is where the information is analyzed. Hither, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The give-and-take describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (15). The discussion should cease with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the give-and-take addresses the limitations of the report, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous enquiry, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.
The references are found at the finish of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or translate results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order co-ordinate to author last proper noun, or numbered according to the social club in which they appear 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. Later on thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they decide whether it meets the journal'south standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy ii.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the writer must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also exist open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is mostly conducted in one of three ways: open review, unmarried-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the writer of the paper and the peer reviewer know i another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer'due south identity is kept private, merely the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-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 devil-may-care, or procrastinating completion of the review (two). Information technology encourages reviewers to be open and honest without beingness disrespectful. Open up reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (two). On the other paw, open peer review tin too prevent reviewers from being honest for fright of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to exist polite (2). This is especially 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 fearfulness that information technology will damper their human relationship with a superior (two). According to the Sense Well-nigh Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study past the China, but 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is by far the well-nigh common. In the China report, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-bullheaded peer review (7). This method is advantageous every bit the reviewer is more probable to provide honest feedback when their identity is curtained (2). This allows the reviewer to brand independent decisions without the influence of the author (2). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in gild to publish their own data beginning (two).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous equally it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the writer based on their country of origin or previous 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 Communist china survey indicates that 45% of authors accept had feel with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it tin can sometimes be like shooting fish in a barrel for the reviewer to make up one's mind the identity of the author based on writing style, discipline matter or self-commendation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally idea 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 forty manuscripts (17). At that place was no perceived departure in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was ofttimes unsuccessful, specially 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 institute that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this departure was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter (17). Additionally, in that location were problems 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 non improve review quality (17).
In addition to open, unmarried-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific customs has the opportunity to comment on these papers, appoint in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Cardinal have enabled scientists to mail service comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental class of peer review. Merely eight% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review (vii). 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 (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 as the article is being adult (nineteen). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism equally the scientific customs volition already be familiar with the piece of work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in impress (nineteen). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' adult by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (xix). These alternative forms of peer review are even so united nations-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is fourth dimension-tested and nonetheless highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are decumbent to error.
PEER REVIEW OF Open up ACCESS JOURNALS
Open admission (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely way (xx). All the same, there tin can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a report published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly dissimilar versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a imitation author, working out of a not-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 list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a faux 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 exercise non have an effective peer review system in identify, the commodity also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which tin be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the report that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) in that location was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized choice of journals, resulting in bias.
JOURNAL Acceptance RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average credence rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is nearly 50% (vii). Xx percentage of the submitted manuscripts that are non accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected post-obit review (seven). Of the 50% accustomed, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only ix% are accustomed without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey by the Prc, 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 advice is greatly helped by peer review' (7). At that place was a similarly loftier level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are 10 tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer every bit indicated by Brian Lucey, an practiced on the bailiwick (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibleness among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as office of the academic community, to take office in peer review. If one is to wait others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others equally well, and put effort into it.
ii) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, advise that it be rejected, simply do not leave ad hominem comments. In that location is no benefit to existence ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to deport a peer review, the bulk of journals will provide a link to either accept or decline. Practice non respond to the electronic mail, respond to the link.
iv) 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'southward perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic bug. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific cognition and commenting on the credibility of the inquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, propose that information technology be professionally proof edited as role of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rail who is reviewing what and when and volition know if someone is late on completing a review. Information technology is important to exist timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of existence late for review deadlines.
seven) Exist realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic near the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar also high for the paper they are editing past proposing changes that are too aggressive and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with discussion selection and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Recall that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors volition try to become both specialised and full general reviewers for any detail paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has adamant they accept 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 it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors equally well as for clarity. Near publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; and so provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical catamenia of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, vocalization and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In improver, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author demand and wait (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to support recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer have fourth dimension to think virtually the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a mean solar day, and then re-read it earlier writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their piece of work, also as to what edits they find helpful, in social club to learn how to peer review effectively (11). 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 offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process (11). The bulk of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal preparation in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, 1 acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore endeavor to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (xi). The APS as well suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is any section 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 whatever office of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may exist more than knowledgeable in the subject thing) without offset 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 endeavor and proceeds insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved past the expertise of 1 of their colleagues, the periodical must be informed of the colleague's help, 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 order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to make certain that the colleague assisting is enlightened of the confidentiality of the peer review procedure (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot exist saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
Mutual ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, in that location are some common scientific errors to await out for. Near of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proffer of causation when there is merely back up for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). Information technology is also common for authors to suggest that 2 variables are different considering the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are non, rather than straight comparing the 2 variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do non control for it, or forget to include of import details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another common error is the author's failure to define terms or utilise words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms tin be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that tin be practical to areas of science outside the scope of the original written report, therefore information technology is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or non the newspaper answered the specific question at mitt (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is generally ameliorate exercise for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be incorrect, only rather carefully identify the bug specific to each paper and continuously enquire themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed clarification of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that at that place is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for adept quality scientific work, and that it really improves the quality of scientific literature. Equally a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this bespeak, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nigh set up for publication, and so sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the boilerplate number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than than 5 errors, and 35 reviewers (sixteen%) did non spot whatsoever.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences ofttimes have whatsoever paper sent in, regardless of its brownie or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more than 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 adult a uncomplicated computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Afterward, a nonsense SCIgen newspaper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German bookish publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published past the US Plant of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations take been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made information technology freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers exercise non accept nonsense work in the hereafter. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/chief.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for beingness unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development director at Sense Almost Science, 'The vast bulk of authors and reviewers recollect peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) retrieve it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of periodical editors in 2009 to aid improve this consequence (27).
It has likewise been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting inventiveness amid 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 likely exist rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, withal may exist capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the procedure stifles the evolution of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
Another result that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (i.three one thousand thousand 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 analyze the quality of a research newspaper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a effect. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a like annotation, the The states National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish 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 like views or opinions as the writer, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to exist reviewed by young man practicing homeopaths, and thus is probable to exist accepted every bit apparent, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their brownie is challenged at a subsequently date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Scout is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have 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 knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-action that takes scientists' time abroad from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such equally research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed every bit a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in i issue (32). Still, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals take very limited press runs (32). Since at that place are no longer folio limits to journals, whatever good work can and should exist published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers tin use to turn down a paper (32). Notwithstanding, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own enquiry published first.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in Jan 2013 by Faculty of 1000 every bit an open up access journal that immediately publishes papers (afterwards an initial cheque to ensure that the paper is in fact produced past a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and and so conducts transparent postal service-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to forestall delays in new science reaching the bookish customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). It also aims to make peer reviewing more off-white by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can 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 up access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'impact', 'novelty' or 'involvement' (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 also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the total peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ likewise offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which newspaper drafts are reviewed earlier being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an contained peer review service designed past Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review procedure then that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 1000000 hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times earlier they find the correct match. This process could take months or fifty-fifty years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in guild to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time earlier their paper 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 past three expert bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The bulk of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are likewise screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). In one case the manuscript has been reviewed past the 3 experts, the most advisable journal for submission is adamant based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author tin and so submit their paper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that 3 experts take 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 consequent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers besides 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 end upwardly rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and let but college-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 will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review volition take identify that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they discover relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers equally a collection (32). In this procedure, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, mail service-publication peer review is likely to get more prevalent every bit a complement to pre-publication peer review, simply not equally a replacement (35). Postal service-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
Concluding REMARKS
Peer review has go 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 problems nowadays in submitted papers. Though the peer review process even so has some flaws and deficiencies, a more than suitable screening method for scientific papers has non yet been proposed or adult. Researchers accept begun and must proceed to wait for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that information technology is a full-proof arrangement that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 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]
vii. Ware G. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." Red china Summary Papers, 4:four-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): 3-seven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Amend Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(iii):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]
19. Kumar Yard. (2009). "A Review of the Review Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, one(four): i-16. [Google Scholar]
xx. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open up Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who'south Afraid of Peer Review?" Scientific discipline, 342(6154):lx-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(viii): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
Post a Comment for "What Does It Mean When We Say This Scientific Study Was Published in a Peer-reviewed Journal?"