The Purpose of Peer Review in Science Is to Ensure That
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(three): 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 Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
twoSection of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Partitioning (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italian republic
Abstract
Peer review has been divers as 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 meet the accepted high standards of their subject field and to control the broadcasting 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 by virtually 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 process. Information technology helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer 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 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 class of scientific advice. Since scientific noesis is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is peculiarly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not all the same been a foolproof organisation developed to accept the place of peer review, however, researchers take been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses pregnant adventure to advances in scientific knowledge and its futurity potential. The electric current commodity summarizes the peer review process, 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, periodical, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is divers 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" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts equally a filter to ensure that only high quality enquiry is published, especially 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 deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to ameliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify whatsoever 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 Greece (2). The peer review process was offset described by a doc named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syrian arab republic, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Physician (ii). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients' medical weather condition upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized past a local medical quango to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the advisable standards were not met, the medico in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the press press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (iii). 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 Salary 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 (3). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (four). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to exist the get-go journal to formalize the peer review procedure in 1665 (5), notwithstanding, information technology is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that fourth dimension it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (6). Information technology did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and soon thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Majestic Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent past correspondence are distributed according to the bailiwick matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (seven). The Purple Society of London adopted this review process in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts earlier they were published in Philosophical Transactions (half-dozen).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized grade has adult immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increment in scientific research during this period (7). It is at present used not merely to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, only also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal's standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is now standard practise by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of piece of work submitted.
Bear upon OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has become 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, information technology encourages authors to strive to produce high quality enquiry that volition advance the field. Peer review too supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Found for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal role of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW Procedure
The peer review procedure begins when a scientist completes a inquiry study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental blueprint, results, and conclusions of the written report. The scientist so submits this newspaper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the discipline affair is in line with that of the journal, and that information technology fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written past a credible source, they will ship the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are likewise known as referees (this procedure is summarized in Effigy i). The office of the editor is to select the about advisable manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must 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 information technology 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 research, and judges whether the work volition contribute to advocacy in the field past evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee word in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, advise areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (9). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, 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 Effigy 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, too every bit by scientists with a more than general knowledge base. Peer reviewers tin be anyone who has competence and expertise in the bailiwick areas that the periodical covers. Reviewers tin can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Ofttimes, the young reviewers are the virtually responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per yr, co-ordinate to a written report on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (seven). Journals will ofttimes take a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also continue a rather large reviewer bank, and so that reviewers do not go 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 as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the piece of work of their peers every bit well. Reviewers may likewise accept personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much every bit possible. Others review to keep upwardly-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective style to practise so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to accelerate their own research as information technology stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are swell on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are afterwards hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review equally a take chances to go enlightened of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on ane'due south resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing tin can too be an effective style for a scientist to testify their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (five).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, establish that 90% of reviewers were smashing to peer review (12). 1 3rd of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upwards to five papers per year, and an additional ane third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT Have TO REVIEW I Paper?
On average, information technology takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. Ane in every 100 participants in the "Sense Almost Science" survey claims to accept taken more than than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Decide 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 University of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the championship, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will beginning determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will so consider whether the enquiry question is important and original, a process which may be aided past a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific construction that begins with the championship, 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 championship is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is articulate and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a meaning role in determining reader involvement, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article volition be of interest to them based on the title and the writer, while 13% of respondents claimed to always exist able to exercise so (xiv).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, primal results, and major conclusions of the report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consequent with the balance of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could make up one's mind whether an commodity would exist of interest to them based on the abstruse solitary sixty-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time (fourteen). This demonstrates that the abstract alone 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 being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the written report's purpose and telescopic, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient groundwork data on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods department should exist detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the by tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to reply the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If data is missing from the methods department, it is the peer reviewer'due south job to place what details need to exist added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (15). This section tin include statistical tests performed on the information, as well as figures and tables in add-on to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm 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 besides make certain that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The give-and-take section is where the 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 too provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future inquiry (15). The give-and-take should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers as well ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the written report, any 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 terminate of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or translate results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order co-ordinate to author last proper name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is conspicuously written and if the content seems logical. Later on thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the periodical'due south standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the height 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increment the hazard of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines earlier 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 DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is by and large conducted in one of three ways: open up review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know i another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, but the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept bearding. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). Information technology encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (ii). On the other manus, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from existence honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite (two). This is particularly true when younger reviewers are given a more than esteemed writer's piece of work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology volition damper their relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open up reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of trivial value (12). In the aforementioned report by the China, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open up peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is past far the nearly common. In the PRC written report, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review (seven). This method is advantageous every bit the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (2). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the writer (ii). The master disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, withal, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects like to their own research may exist tempted to delay completing the review in society to publish their own information first (ii).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased confronting the writer based on their country of origin or previous work (ii). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Virtually Science 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-bullheaded peer review is that, peculiarly in niche areas of research, information technology tin can sometimes exist easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or cocky-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author'south identity from peer reviewers, equally is the case in double-blind review, is generally idea to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). Ane 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 twoscore manuscripts (17). There was no perceived deviation in quality betwixt the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous report conducted by McNutt et al. had unlike results (18). In this instance, blinding was successful 73% of the fourth dimension, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this divergence was too small to exist consequential, their written report 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 ameliorate review quality (17).
In addition to open up, single-blind and double-bullheaded peer review, in that location are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific customs has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Fundamental take enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is some other journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Merely 8% of authors surveyed in the China study had experience with mail-publication review (seven). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has as well emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such every bit Naboj, which allow scientists to carry peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (xix). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous procedure, which allows the public to encounter both the article and the reviews equally the commodity is being developed (xix). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism every bit the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (19). Dynamic review also reduces the fourth dimension lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' adult by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (nineteen). These alternative forms of peer review are even so un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
Open up access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely fashion (twenty). However, at that place tin can be problems regarding the peer review process of open up 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 author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in club to decide whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this report were selected from the Directory of Open up Admission 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 imitation paper, suggesting that credence was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful data on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that practise not have an effective peer review system in place, the commodity likewise generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can exist detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that fabricated it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) at that place was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized choice of journals, resulting in bias.
JOURNAL Credence RATES
Based on a contempo survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% (7). Twenty pct of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (vii). Of the fifty% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accustomed without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organisation
Based on a recent survey past the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current organisation of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the argument that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (seven). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the thought that peer review 'provides control in scientific advice' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The post-obit are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer equally indicated past Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
i) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, every bit function of the academic customs, to accept office in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the piece of work of others equally well, and put try into information technology.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, propose that it be rejected, simply do non leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Practice non respond to the email, respond to the link.
four) Exist helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs piece of work from the reviewer'south perspective.
five) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or controlling. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the newspaper has a lot of typographical errors, advise that it be professionally proof edited every bit part of the review.
six) Exist 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. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the periodical and the author, as well equally to not develop a reputation of existence tardily for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may prepare the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are as well ambitious and editors must override them.
eight) Exist compassionate
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with give-and-take option and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Call up that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will endeavour to go both specialised and general reviewers for any item paper 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 non in their area of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical period. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors too every bit for clarity. About publishers provide brusque 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 drawn. And so provide feedback on style, vox and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Guild (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor'southward and author'southward shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author demand and expect (11). To delight the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on fourth dimension, 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. It is suggested that the reviewer accept fourth dimension to remember about the paper; they should read it one time, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS too suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their piece of work, as well equally to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students exercise reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a kinesthesia member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process (eleven). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practise not get formal training in peer review, just rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, ane acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors past offering to review manuscripts (11). The APS besides 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 procedure in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable well-nigh (23). If at that place 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 department. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to call back that if a paper can exist improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague'due south help, and approval must exist obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must exist identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to brand certain that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review procedure (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot exist saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there 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, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a little question (24). It is too common for authors to propose that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than straight comparing the 2 variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practice not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete country of the organisms studied (24). Some other common mistake is the author's failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be practical to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is improve for reviewers to look at the novelty of the thought, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although information technology is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to non focus on a checklist of things that could exist wrong, but rather carefully place the problems specific to each newspaper and continuously inquire themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the newspaper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can exist accessed through the American Physiological Gild website under the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that in that location is petty evidence that the process really works, that information technology is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific piece of work, and that information technology really improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 written report published in the Journal of the American Medical Clan ended, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics also contend that peer review is non 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 nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the boilerplate number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than than v errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly past scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, considering the more papers they accept, the more money they tin can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple figurer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Later, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that 16 SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published past the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations accept been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and briefing organizers practise not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for beingness unable to accurately detect plagiarism. Even so, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development managing director at Sense Virtually Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) call up information technology is capable. The academic fourth dimension involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the arrangement to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the assistance of periodical editors in 2009 to assist improve this effect (27).
It has as well 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 have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, every bit they believe that this work volition probable 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 non seem particularly stiff initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether different circumstances, or in the light of new data (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the procedure stifles the evolution of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific customs.
Another upshot 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 (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), only the number of competent peer reviewers bachelor could non accept reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a inquiry newspaper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accustomed as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or periodical itself could exist substandard (29). On a like note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any loftier 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 hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can crusade bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is probable to exist reviewed past fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is probable to be accepted every bit apparent, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a subsequently engagement and they are after retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (xxx).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new cognition into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-action that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed equally a means of helping editors cull which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one outcome (32). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to impress, and many journals have very limited press runs (32). Since there are no longer folio limits to journals, any good piece of work can and should be published. Consequently, beingness selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can utilize to turn down a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they accept personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own enquiry published first.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of k as an open up admission journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the newspaper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new scientific discipline reaching the bookish customs that are acquired past prolonged publication times (32). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial conclusion letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 equally an open up access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects manufactures to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'touch on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing programme" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that requite them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ as well encourages open peer review, and authors are given the pick to post the total peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service chosen 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 by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to ameliorate the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into inquiry (35). According to Keith Collier, over xv one thousand thousand hours are lost each twelvemonth to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are afterward submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors oft have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right lucifer. This procedure could have months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors cull the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, 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 past three adept bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author'southward fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). One time the manuscript has been reviewed past the 3 experts, the nigh appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The paper is returned to the author in 1-two weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can then submit their paper 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 information technology shows that iii experts have recommended the newspaper to them (35). Rubriq likewise has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes information technology consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals likewise benefit, every bit 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 allow only higher-quality articles to exist sent to their peer reviewers (35).
According 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 independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers every bit a collection (32). In this procedure, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier'due south stance, mail-publication peer review is probable to become more prevalent every bit a complement to pre-publication peer review, simply not as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but volition provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that equally journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, loftier quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of whatever errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review procedure nevertheless has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not even so been proposed or developed. Researchers take begun and must continue to look for ways of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that information technology is a full-proof organization that ensures only quality enquiry papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Yard. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, eleven(2): 217-226. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware Yard. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." People's republic of china Summary Papers, 4:4-20. [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(i): 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(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Furnishings of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Inquiry." Biology and Medicine, ane(4): 1-xvi. [Google Scholar]
xx. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, ane(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):threescore-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
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/
Publicar un comentario for "The Purpose of Peer Review in Science Is to Ensure That"