Why Is It Important to Have Peer Review?
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(iii): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University 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
aneClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
iiiChair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined every bit 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 across the accepted loftier standards of their discipline and to control the broadcasting of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior adept review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has get an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals reply meaningful enquiry questions and draw authentic conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts every bit a filter to prevent this 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 particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review procedure stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts equally a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof arrangement developed to take the place of peer review, all the same, researchers take been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific manufactures with little or no peer review. This poses significant gamble to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is divers as "a process of subjecting an writer'due south scholarly piece of work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two principal purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, particularly in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are accounted suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to meliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and besides identify any errors that demand correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was adult long before the scholarly periodical. In fact, the peer review process is idea to accept been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Hellenic republic (2). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician (2). At that place, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the country of their patients' medical atmospheric condition upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the md had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the advisable standards were non met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the press press in 1453 allowed written documents to exist distributed to the full general public (three). At this time, information technology became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the showtime universal method for generating and assessing new scientific discipline (iii). His piece of work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Periodical des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Regal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish inquiry results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the starting time journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), nonetheless, it is of import to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did non serve to ensure the validity of the research (half-dozen). It did not take 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 inquiry study earlier publication. The Royal Gild of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review procedure, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent past correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is non known to the author." (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 course has developed immensely since the 2d World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period (7). It is now used non only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to decide which papers sufficiently run across the journal'southward standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is at present standard practice by virtually credible scientific journals, and is an essential part 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 effectively subjects an author's work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce loftier quality research that will accelerate the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of scientific discipline. A scientific hypothesis or statement is mostly not accustomed by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Bear on 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 study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the report. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable periodical that specializes in a relevant enquiry field, a footstep referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are too known as referees (this procedure is summarized in Figure one). The part of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review procedure. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that 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 carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental pattern, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the inquiry, and judges whether the work will contribute to advocacy in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify whatever scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the newspaper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that tin exist strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the report's scope (ix). If the paper is accustomed, as per suggestion past the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure i.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, likewise as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from immature and up-and-coming researchers to erstwhile masters in the field. Often, the immature reviewers are the about responsive and deliver the all-time quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer volition behave approximately eight reviews per year, co-ordinate to a report on peer review past the Publishing Enquiry Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals volition oft take a pool of reviewers with various backgrounds to permit for many unlike perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Practise REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to bear peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, then the question is raised equally to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some experience an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may likewise have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assistance as much every bit possible. Others review to go on up-to-appointment with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective style to do and then. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own inquiry as information technology stimulates new ideas and allows them to read nearly new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on edifice associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus 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's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's interest in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (v).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense Near Scientific discipline at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, constitute that xc% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). I third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per twelvemonth, and an boosted one third of respondents were happy to review upward to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT Take TO REVIEW I Paper?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one newspaper (12), still, this number may vary profoundly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. I in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to take 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 information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). After logging into the organisation using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers 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
Equally previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the discipline thing is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will and then consider whether the inquiry question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review commonly follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that information technology is clear and curtailed. A written report by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published past the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a meaning role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually approximate whether an article will be of interest to them based on the championship and the author, while thirteen% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so (14).
The abstract is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consequent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that forty% of respondents could decide whether an commodity would be of involvement to them based on the abstract lone lx-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an commodity based on the abstract lxxx-100% of the time (xiv). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is ofttimes used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific newspaper presents the inquiry question in the context of what is already known near the topic, in guild to identify why the question existence studied is of interest to the scientific customs, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the report's purpose and scope, briefly describes the full general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background data on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section likewise includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods department should exist detailed enough that it can be used information technology to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the advisable methods were used to answer the enquiry question, and if they were written with sufficient item. If information is missing from the methods section, information technology is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details need to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or estimation (15). This section tin can include statistical tests performed on the information, also as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers besides 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 will also make sure that table and figure captions are advisable both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the information is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to by studies (15). The discussion describes the pregnant and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This department may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for time to come research (15). The give-and-take should end with a conclusions department that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the word is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers as well ensure that the give-and-take addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the report to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the written report.
The references are institute at the end of the paper, and list all of the data sources cited in the text to draw the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the commendation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered co-ordinate to the order in which they appear in the newspaper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is conspicuously written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal's standards for publication,
and whether it falls inside the superlative 25% of papers in its field (sixteen) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in gild of importance, is presented in Figure two.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increment the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open up 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 three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another's identity. Alternatively, in single-bullheaded review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, just 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 it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without existence disrespectful. Open reviewing too discourages plagiarism amongst authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fearfulness of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone downwards their criticisms in social club to be polite (ii). This is particularly truthful when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author's work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior (two). According to the Sense About Scientific discipline survey, editors detect that completely open up reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned written report by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (vii).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with unmarried-blind peer review (7). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is curtained (2). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author (2). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, notwithstanding, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own enquiry may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their ain data beginning (ii).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Virtually Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a adept thought (12), and the People's republic of china survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-bullheaded peer review (vii). The disadvantage of double-bullheaded peer review is that, peculiarly in niche areas of enquiry, it can sometimes exist piece of cake for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject thing or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, every bit is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A written report 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 every bit normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived deviation in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, particularly with well-known authors (17). However, a previous written report conducted past McNutt et al. had dissimilar results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this divergence was too small to exist consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a unlike subject matter (17). Additionally, there 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 meliorate review quality (17).
In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, in that location are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may exist subjected to post-publication peer review. As 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 accept enabled scientists to postal service comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is some other journal launched with this experimental course of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the China study had experience with postal service-publication review (7). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which permit scientists to conduct peer reviews on manufactures 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 (nineteen). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism equally the scientific customs will already exist familiar with the work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in print (19). Dynamic review as well reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' adult past Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (19). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-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 prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, there tin can be issues regarding the peer review process of open admission journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent establishment) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in guild to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall'south List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a imitation 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 written report highlights useful data on the bug associated with lower quality publishers that do non take an effective peer review system in identify, the article besides generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can exist detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. At that place were ii limitations of the written report that fabricated it impossible to accurately make up one's mind the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no command group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is near l% (7). 20 pct of the submitted manuscripts that are non accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (vii). Of the 50% accustomed, 41% are accepted with the status of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey past the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (vii). The big majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is profoundly helped by peer review' (7). There was a similarly high level of back up (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW Finer
The following are ten tips on how to be an constructive peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the field of study (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to have function in peer review. If 1 is to expect others to review their piece of work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others likewise, and put effort into information technology.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, propose that information technology be rejected, only practice not leave ad hominem comments. There is no do good to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to behave a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the e-mail, 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'due south perspective.
five) 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 issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that information technology exist professionally proof edited as part of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. Information technology is of import to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of existence belatedly for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the piece of work presented, the changes they advise and their part. Peer reviewers may fix the bar also high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be compassionate
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Remember that both specialists and generalists tin can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will endeavour to become both specialised and full general reviewers for whatsoever particular newspaper to allow for unlike perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has adamant they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their expanse of expertise.
x) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical menstruation. A reviewer should proofread their review earlier submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well equally for clarity. About 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 information sources and methods of investigation used, the logical period of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, vocalism and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and look (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on fourth dimension, and that it provides clear explanations to dorsum up recommendations. To exist helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer have time to retrieve nigh the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and and then re-read it earlier writing the review (xi). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their work, every bit well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and request a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. Information technology is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as frequently as possible in gild to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal preparation in peer review, but 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 past offer to review manuscripts (11). The APS too 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 annotate on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is whatever department of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever office of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may exist more knowledgeable in the subject field matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes beyond something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and proceeds insight. It is important 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'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 club to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the task of the reviewer to brand sure that the colleague assisting is enlightened 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, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Well-nigh of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proposition of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a little question (24). It is also mutual 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 comparison the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do non command for information technology, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical land of the organisms studied (24). Another common error is the author'south failure to define terms or utilize words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that tin can be applied to areas of science outside the telescopic of the original report, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the newspaper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is more often than not better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could exist incorrect, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if annihilation is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. Information technology can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources department.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is lilliputian prove that the procedure actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific piece of work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ended, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics also argue that peer review is not constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was most gear up for publication, so sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did non spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the procedure is non conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences oftentimes have whatsoever paper sent in, regardless of its brownie or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they tin can brand from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by iii MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who adult a simple figurer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). After, a nonsense SCIgen newspaper 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 U.s.a. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations take been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a plan to observe SCIgen papers and has made information technology freely bachelor to ensure publishers and conference organizers practise not take nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately notice plagiarism. Notwithstanding, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically exist included as a component of peer review. As explained past Alice Tuff, development director at Sense Well-nigh Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should observe plagiarism (81%) but merely a minority (38%) think information technology is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would crusade the arrangement to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing firm Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help better this effect (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered enquiry quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work volition likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may effect in rejection of innovative enquiry, as some studies may non seem particularly potent initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the low-cal of new information (28). Scientists that practise non believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh cognition and new developments into the scientific customs.
Another issue 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 (one.three million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), simply 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 existence accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish whatever newspaper in an obscure journal that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality enquiry (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and agree similar views or opinions every bit the author, which tin cause bias in their review. For example, a paper on homeopathy is likely to exist reviewed past swain practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted every bit credible, though other scientists may notice the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later on engagement and they are afterwards retracted. Retraction Watch 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 away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such every bit research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Manager for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed equally a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue (32). Even so, nowadays virtually journals are bachelor online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, whatever good work tin and should exist published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a journal is no longer a valid alibi that peer reviewers tin use to decline a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they take personal ulterior motives, such every bit getting their ain research published start.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Kinesthesia of 1000 every bit an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (later on an initial bank check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), so conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to forestall delays in new scientific discipline reaching the bookish customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). Information technology also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they tin publish their own similar work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open up peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial determination letters (32).
PeerJ was founded past Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 every bit an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, non on subjective determinants of 'touch on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open up peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed past Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to ameliorate the peer review arrangement (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease back-up in the peer review process and so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can exist put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each yr to redundant peer review, equally papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors ofttimes take to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are frequently rejected multiple times before they find the right friction match. This process 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 get-go, thus reducing the time earlier their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three skilful academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the iii experts, the almost advisable journal for submission is adamant based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the author in one-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can so submit their newspaper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Written report 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 procedure, and thus makes information technology consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers too 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 up rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and permit only college-quality articles to exist sent to their peer reviewers (35).
Co-ordinate to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new management, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is contained of specific periodical criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals volition then choose papers that they notice 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, postal service-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review volition not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an boosted measurement of impact (35). Collier likewise believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, in that location volition be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has get fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, loftier quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues nowadays in submitted papers. Though the peer review process however has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not notwithstanding been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current problems with peer review to ensure that it is a total-proof system 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]
iv. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Yard. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(two): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware M. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, 4:4-xx. [Google Scholar]
viii. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(ii): 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-vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Writer Identity Better Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(x):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar One thousand. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(iv): i-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(one): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who'southward Agape of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):sixty-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Push 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 Commodity." Am J Respir Crit Intendance Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Furnishings 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/#:~:text=Peer%20review%20has%20become%20the,that%20will%20advance%20the%20field.
0 Response to "Why Is It Important to Have Peer Review?"
Post a Comment