Does an Article Need to Be Peer Reviewed
EJIFCC. 2014 October; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 October 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
aneClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
iClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Sectionalization (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been divers equally a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to run into the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use past most journals, the peer review process has besides been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing procedure. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals respond meaningful enquiry questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to foreclose this work from reaching the scientific community. The major reward of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific advice. Since scientific cognition is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is specially important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts every bit a poor screen confronting plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the identify of peer review, even so, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online merely/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with petty or no peer review. This poses pregnant take chances to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The electric current article summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with unlike types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, periodical, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an author'southward scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve ii main purposes. Firstly, information technology acts as a filter to ensure that merely loftier quality enquiry is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to better the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Hellenic republic (two). The peer review process was first described by a doctor named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Dr. (2). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to decide whether the physician had met the required standards of medical intendance. If the medical council accounted 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 bachelor, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (three). In 1665, the French Periodical des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Imperial Lodge were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first periodical to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), however, it is important to notation 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 (half-dozen). Information technology did not accept long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Regal 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 bailiwick affair to those members who are most versed in these matters. The study of their identity is not known to the writer." (vii). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second Globe War, at to the lowest degree partly due to the big increment in scientific research during this flow (7). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, simply also to determine which papers sufficiently run into the periodical's standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of piece of work submitted.
Affect OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has go the foundation of the scholarly publication system 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 high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review as well supports and maintains integrity and actuality in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is more often than not non accepted past the academic community unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (eight). The Plant for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Bear upon Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a inquiry written report and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper 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 newspaper to ensure that the subject area 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 by a apparent source, they will send the newspaper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there 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 appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work volition contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the enquiry. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers requite recommendations to the editor regarding whether the newspaper should be accustomed, rejected, or improved earlier publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of sure referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (9). If the paper is accepted, every bit per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the product phase, where it 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, as 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 tin range from young and upwards-and-coming researchers to erstwhile masters in the field. Often, the immature reviewers are the nigh responsive and evangelize the best quality reviews, though this is non always the case. On average, a reviewer volition conduct approximately 8 reviews per year, co-ordinate to a report on peer review past the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to let for many different perspectives. They will also go along a rather large reviewer bank, and then that reviewers practise not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time 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 equally to what incentive referees accept 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 piece of work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may desire to help equally much as possible. Others review to go on upwards-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to exercise then. Some scientists utilise peer review as an opportunity to advance their own inquiry equally it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read near new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are cracking on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the periodical are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a adventure to become aware of the latest enquiry before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career evolution, peer reviewing can be desirable equally it is often noted on one'south resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'southward involvement in peer review when assessing their functioning for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can likewise exist an effective way for a scientist to evidence their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Scientific discipline Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were cracking to peer review (12). I 3rd of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per twelvemonth, and an additional 1 3rd of respondents were happy to review up to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), however, 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 Virtually Scientific discipline" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (thirteen). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the Academy of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers tin be entered into the search bar. The database provides the championship, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the periodical is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first decide if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will and so consider whether the research question is of import and original, a procedure which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must exist 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 it is articulate and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Printing in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant part in determining reader involvement, equally 72% of respondents said they could usually estimate whether an article will be of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to exercise so (fourteen).
The abstract is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, primal results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR report indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an commodity would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-eighty% of the fourth dimension, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract lxxx-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract solitary is often used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question existence studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in cognition the written report aims to fill up (15). The introduction identifies the study's purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the inquiry 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 agile voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to respond the inquiry question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details demand to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the information are explained without judgement, bias or estimation (15). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, equally well equally figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient particular, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will besides make sure that table and figure captions are advisable both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the 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 futurity inquiry (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 articulate and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, whatever anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.
The references are found at the end of the paper, and listing all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the groundwork, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the commendation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical society according to writer last name, or numbered co-ordinate to the society in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the newspaper is conspicuously written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal'due south standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the meridian 25% of papers in its field (16) to decide priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the gamble of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the periodical guidelines before submission. The author must as well be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Unlike TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in one of 3 ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the newspaper and the peer reviewer know one another's identity. Alternatively, in unmarried-bullheaded review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, simply the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (two). On the other hand, open peer review can too forestall reviewers from existence honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in guild to be polite (ii). This is particularly true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author'south work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their human relationship with a superior (ii). According to the Sense Almost Science survey, editors find that completely open up reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study by the China, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open up peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-blind peer review (7). This method is advantageous every bit 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 writer (2). The principal disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, yet, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own information outset (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous equally it prevents the reviewer from beingness biased against the author based on their state 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 About Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-bullheaded peer review is a good idea (12), and the Prc survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, information technology can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to decide the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or cocky-citation, and thus, impart bias (ii).
Masking the author'south identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is more often than not thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study past Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). Ane hundred and xviii 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). In that location was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, specially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the fourth dimension, and they plant 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 simply biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different field of study matter (17). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. ended that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In add-on to open up, unmarried-bullheaded and double-blind peer review, at that place are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to mail service-publication peer review. Every bit many papers are now 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 Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (ten). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental course of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had feel with post-publication review (seven). Another experimental form of peer review chosen Dynamic Peer Review has likewise emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which let scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous procedure, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism equally the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (nineteen). Dynamic review also reduces the fourth dimension lag betwixt manuscript submission and publishing. An case 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 however un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and withal highly utilized. All methods of peer review accept their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF Open up ACCESS JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are condign increasingly pop every bit they let the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). All the same, there can be bug regarding the peer review procedure of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written past a fake writer, working out of a not-existent establishment) 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 false paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on fiscal involvement rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do non have an constructive peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which tin be detrimental to the full general perception of OA journals. There were ii limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control grouping (subscription-based journals), and 2) the faux papers were sent to a not-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Periodical Credence RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average credence rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% (seven). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected post-obit review (7). Of the 50% accustomed, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accustomed without the asking for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organization
Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current organization of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is profoundly helped by peer review' (vii). There 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 post-obit are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer every bit indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
1) Exist professional
Peer review is a common responsibility amid fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as role of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to look others to review their piece of work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others also, and put effort into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave advert hominem comments. At that place is no benefit to beingness ruthless.
iii) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to enquire them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Exercise non respond to the email, reply to the link.
4) 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 work from the reviewer'southward perspective.
five) Exist scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, non an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific cognition and commenting on the brownie of the inquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as office of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors runway who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to exist timely both out of respect for the periodical and the author, also every bit to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the piece of work presented, the changes they propose and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are also ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Think that both specialists and generalists tin can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to become both specialised and general reviewers for any particular newspaper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the newspaper is not in their surface area of expertise.
10) Exist organised
A review requires construction and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well equally for clarity. Most publishers provide brusk guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions fatigued. Then provide feedback on manner, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to better.
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'south shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the writer demand and expect (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer take fourth dimension to think about the newspaper; they should read it once, await at least a mean solar day, and so re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well equally to what edits they find helpful, in club to larn how to peer review effectively (eleven). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. Information technology is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as frequently as possible in order to become skilled at the process (eleven). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, simply rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (11). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (xi).
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 not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide farther feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any office of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may exist more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without start obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes beyond something they are unsure of in the paper, they tin consult the literature to try and gain insight. Information technology is of import for scientists to call up that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the periodical must be informed of the colleague'south assist, and blessing must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected certificate. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in social club to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the chore of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). Once the review is consummate, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be 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. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proffer of causation when there is but support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a piffling question (24). It is as well common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of i variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practice non command 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 error is the author's failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices tin can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are besides a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that tin can be applied to areas of science exterior the telescopic of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, information, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or non the newspaper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although it is of import to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is more often than not better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could exist wrong, but rather carefully place the problems specific to each newspaper 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 past Frederic 1000. Hoppin, Jr. Information technology 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 there is niggling bear witness that the process really works, that information technology is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. 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 furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics also contend that peer review is not constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted viii deliberate errors into a paper that was nigh ready for publication, and so sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the newspaper, 221 (53%) responded, the boilerplate number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did non spot any.
Some other criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining big numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often take any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they take, the more money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 past iii MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a uncomplicated reckoner programme called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them equally scientific papers (26). After, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to notice SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. Information technology is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/primary.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included equally a component of peer review. Every bit explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers recollect peer review should notice plagiarism (81%) but simply a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the organisation to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of periodical editors in 2009 to assistance improve this upshot (27).
Information technology has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting creativity amidst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that accept the potential to brand major advances and epitome shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by 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, nonetheless may exist capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under dissimilar circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that do non believe in peer review contend that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific customs.
Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that at that place 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 (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), simply the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted every bit a result. Information technology is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or periodical itself could be substandard (29). On a like note, the Us National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in culling medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more than controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and concord similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is probable to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the newspaper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, only their credibility is challenged at a subsequently date and they are later on retracted. Retraction Watch is a website defended 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 likewise criticized for existence a delay to the dissemination of new cognition into the scientific customs, and equally an unpaid-action that takes scientists' fourth dimension away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such equally inquiry and pedagogy, for which they are paid (31). As described past Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed equally a means of helping editors cull which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could impress in one consequence (32). Withal, present most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited press runs (32). Since at that place are no longer page limits to journals, whatsoever skillful work can and should exist published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a periodical is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to pass up a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their ain research published first.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Kinesthesia of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (afterward an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are acquired by prolonged publication times (32). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair past eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review and then they can publish their own similar work offset (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial determination messages (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 requite 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 pick to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an 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 so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can exist put back into inquiry (35). Co-ordinate to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, equally papers become rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed over again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This procedure could have months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order 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 writer pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by iii practiced bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author'due south fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are likewise screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most advisable journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The newspaper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author tin can then submit their newspaper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Written report attached. The Rubriq Study will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their fourth dimension (35). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and let 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 will be posted online, and a mail service-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will and so cull papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, mail-publication peer review is probable to become more than prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but non as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of affect (35). Collier likewise believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there volition be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has get fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting inquiry 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 than suitable screening method for scientific papers has non nonetheless been proposed or adult. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the electric 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 Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
iv. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini G. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(2): 217-226. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware One thousand. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, iv:4-20. [Google Scholar]
8. 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(1): 3-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(iii):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(x):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(4): i-xvi. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(i): 49-51. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who'due south Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(ii): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Intendance Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager Due east, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemical science and Laboratory Medicine
brownhiscriand1971.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "Does an Article Need to Be Peer Reviewed"
Post a Comment