Peer-reviewed Scientific Journal Article Is a Not Primary Source True or False?
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 October 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, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
1Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been defined every bit a process of subjecting an writer's scholarly work, enquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field. It functions to encourage authors to run into the accustomed loftier standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of enquiry data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has besides been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Inside the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the bookish writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has go increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts equally a filter to foreclose this 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 advice. 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 as a poor screen confronting plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, in that location has not nevertheless been a foolproof arrangement developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers accept been looking into electronic ways 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 articles with petty or no peer review. This poses pregnant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its time to come potential. The current commodity summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with unlike types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open up access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an writer'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 ii principal purposes. Firstly, information technology acts as a filter to ensure that simply loftier quality research is published, specially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the written report. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to meliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly periodical. In fact, the peer review process is idea to take been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review procedure was kickoff described by a medico named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his volume Ideals of the Doctor (two). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients' medical weather upon each visit. Following handling, 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 doc in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to exist distributed to the general public (3). At this time, it became more of import to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known every bit the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (three). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (three). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English language Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Club were the showtime scientific journals to systematically publish inquiry results (iv). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to exist the first periodical to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), however, it is important 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 not serve to ensure the validity of the inquiry (half dozen). It did not take long for the peer review procedure to evolve, and soon thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Order of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject thing to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is non known to the author." (seven). The Royal Gild 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 grade has developed immensely since the 2d Globe War, at to the lowest degree partly due to the big increase in scientific inquiry during this period (7). It is now used non only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to make up one's mind which papers sufficiently run into the journal'south standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential office of determining the brownie and quality of work submitted.
Touch on OF THE PEER REVIEW Procedure
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because information technology effectively subjects an author's piece of work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review too supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted past the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (viii). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) just considers journals that are peer-reviewed equally candidates to receive Touch on Factors. Peer review is a well-established procedure which has been a formal role of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental pattern, results, and conclusions of the written report. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a stride referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal volition review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the periodical, 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 apparent source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are likewise known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it advisedly and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer too assesses the significance of the inquiry, and judges whether the work volition contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers place any scientific errors and references that are missing or wrong. Peer reviewers requite recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor volition mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can exist strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's telescopic (ix). If the paper is accustomed, as per proffer by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production phase, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific periodical. An overview of the review procedure is presented in Figure ane.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, equally well as by scientists with a more than full general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the discipline areas that the periodical covers. Reviewers tin can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to quondam masters in the field. Often, the immature reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the example. On boilerplate, a reviewer volition conduct approximately eight reviews per twelvemonth, according to a report on peer review past the Publishing Inquiry Consortium (PRC) (seven). Journals will oft take a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer banking company, and so that reviewers do non get burnt out, overwhelmed or fourth dimension constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Do REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to behave peer reviews and the process takes considerable endeavour, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees accept to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to aid as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective manner to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their ain inquiry as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read most new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are cracking on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review every bit a chance to become aware of the latest enquiry earlier their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the cloth. Finally, in terms of career evolution, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'south involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (xi). Peer reviewing can too be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Peachy TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted past the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, institute that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). I third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upward to five papers per year, and an additional one tertiary of respondents were happy to review upwardly to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE Paper?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one newspaper (12), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. Ane in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to accept taken more 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 (13). After logging into the system 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 championship, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is even so actively publishing. The black book 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 volition first decide if the discipline thing is well suited for the content of the periodical. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is of import and original, a process which may be aided past a literature browse of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review ordinarily follow a specific construction 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 it is articulate and curtailed. A study by the National Clan of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a significant function in determining reader interest, every bit 72% of respondents said they could usually gauge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to e'er be able to do so (14).
The abstruse is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the written report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that xl% of respondents could decide whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract lone 60-lxxx% of the time, while 32% could judge an commodity based on the abstract 80-100% of the fourth dimension (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 nigh the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of involvement to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the report aims to fill (fifteen). The introduction identifies the study'south purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (fifteen). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background data on the research topic, and ensures that the inquiry question and hypothesis are conspicuously identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods department also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can exist used it to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the past tense and in the agile voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If data is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer'south job to identify what details need to exist added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without sentence, bias or interpretation (15). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, likewise 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 also ostend that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will too make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Hither, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the significant 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 as well provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for hereafter research (15). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers as well ensure that the give-and-take addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the report.
The references are found at the cease 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 commendation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered co-ordinate to the lodge 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 clearly written and if the content seems logical. Later on thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal'southward standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the acme 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 Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The writer must too exist open to criticism and suggested revisions, and larn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Different TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in ane of three ways: open up review, unmarried-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the newspaper and the peer reviewer know one another'due south identity. Alternatively, in unmarried-blind review, the reviewer'due south identity is kept private, just the writer's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being devil-may-care, or procrastinating completion of the review (two). It encourages reviewers to be open up and honest without being disrespectful. Open up reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review can also forbid reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite (2). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer'southward piece of work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it volition damper their relationship with a superior (ii). Co-ordinate to the Sense About Scientific discipline survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the same study by the PRC, just 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is by far the almost common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review (vii). This method is advantageous as 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 author (2). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in lodge to publish their ain data offset (ii).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous equally information technology prevents the reviewer from being biased against the writer based on their land of origin or previous piece of work (two). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Most Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had feel with double-bullheaded peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be like shooting fish in a barrel for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing fashion, bailiwick matter or self-commendation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, equally is the example in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and 18 manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, peculiarly with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted past McNutt et al. had different results (eighteen). 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 college (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this deviation was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject affair (17). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. ended that masking author identity from reviewers may not amend review quality (17).
In addition to open, single-bullheaded and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to mail-publication peer review. Equally many papers are now published online, the scientific customs has the opportunity to annotate on these papers, appoint in online discussions and post a formal review. For instance, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another periodical launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only viii% of authors surveyed in the Mainland china written report had feel with mail-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 allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on manufactures in the preprint media (xix). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to run across both the article and the reviews every bit the article is beingness adult (19). Dynamic peer review helps preclude plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (nineteen). Dynamic review too reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An instance of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed past Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily past physicists (19). These alternative forms of peer review are all the same 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 fault.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are condign increasingly popular equally they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, there can exist issues regarding the peer review process of open admission journals. In a report published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly dissimilar versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a simulated author, working out of a not-existent establishment) to a selected group of OA journals. This written report was performed in order 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's List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a false paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on fiscal interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful data on the issues associated with lower quality publishers that exercise not have an effective peer review system in place, the article as well generalizes the written report results to all OA journals, which tin can be detrimental to the full general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control grouping (subscription-based journals), and two) the faux papers were sent to a not-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal Credence RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is most l% (7). Twenty pct of the submitted manuscripts that are non accepted are rejected prior to review, and xxx% are rejected following review (7). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the status of revision, while simply 9% are accepted without the request for revision (vii).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organization
Based on a recent survey by the Red china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to exist 'dissatisfied' (7). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is profoundly helped past peer review' (7). At that place was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (vii).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW Finer
The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated past Brian Lucey, an expert on the discipline (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility amidst fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic customs, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their piece of work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.
two) Be pleasant
If the paper is of depression quality, suggest that it be rejected, just exercise 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 conduct a peer review, the bulk of journals will provide a link to either have or reject. Do non respond to the electronic mail, reply to the link.
4) Exist helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is skilful and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, non an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic problems. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the inquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the newspaper has a lot of typographical errors, propose that it be professionally proof edited equally function of the review.
vi) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rail who is reviewing what and when and volition know if someone is late on completing a review. Information technology is important to exist timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, too equally to not develop a reputation of existence belatedly for review deadlines.
vii) Exist realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic virtually the piece of work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may prepare the bar too high for the newspaper they are editing past proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Exist sensitive and respectful with word selection and tone in a review.
ix) Be open
Recall that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors volition try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular newspaper to let for different 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 area of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires construction and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. About publishers provide curt guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; and 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 then provide feedback on mode, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to amend.
In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor'south and author's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to support recommendations. To be helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer take time to think nigh the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and so re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (eleven). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as oftentimes as possible in order to become skilled at the procedure (eleven). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal preparation in peer review, but rather learn past observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with periodical editors past offering to review manuscripts (11). The APS as well suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (xi).
The peer reviewer should merely comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable most (23). If there is any 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 whatsoever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject thing) without beginning 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 endeavor and gain insight. It is of import for scientists to remember that if a newspaper tin can be improved past the expertise of i of their colleagues, the periodical must be informed of the colleague's assist, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected certificate. Additionally, the colleague must exist identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in club to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for whatsoever contributions (23). It is the task of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). In one case the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, 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, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is also common for authors to propose that 2 variables are dissimilar because the furnishings of one variable are statistically pregnant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a misreckoning variable and do non control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical country of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the author'southward failure to define terms or use words with precision, every bit these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms tin exist a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a mutual occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce cognition that can exist applied to areas of scientific discipline outside the scope 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 non 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 not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, simply rather carefully place the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to deport peer review effectively is presented in the newspaper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It tin can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is trivial testify that the process really works, that it is really an effective screen for skillful quality scientific work, and that information technology actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics besides argue that peer review is non effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted viii deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and so sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (vii). Of the 420 reviewers that received the newspaper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more five errors, and 35 reviewers (sixteen%) did not spot any.
Some other criticism of peer review is that the procedure is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining big numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often take whatsoever paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more than papers they accept, the more than money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 past three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a unproblematic computer program chosen SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German language academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated past SCIgen were published by the United states Plant of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a programme to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers practice not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/primary.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for beingness unable to accurately detect plagiarism. Withal, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development director at Sense About Scientific discipline, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) recollect it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the aid of journal editors in 2009 to assist improve this issue (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity among researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative enquiry ideas and bold research questions that take the potential to brand major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, equally they believe that this work will likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem specially potent initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether different circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to acquit peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (ane.iii meg papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), only the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a inquiry paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a upshot. It is now possible to publish whatsoever newspaper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could exist substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves equally "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish whatsoever high quality inquiry (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized piece of work is typically performed by people who are interested and agree similar views or opinions every bit the author, which tin can cause bias in their review. For case, a newspaper on homeopathy is probable to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their brownie is challenged at a later date and they are after retracted. Retraction Spotter is a website dedicated to revealing papers that accept been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is as well criticized for being a delay to the broadcasting of new noesis into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' fourth dimension away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). Equally described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally adult as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in ane issue (32). However, present almost journals are bachelor 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, whatsoever good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they take personal ulterior motives, such every bit getting their ain inquiry published first.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of one thousand as an open access periodical that immediately publishes papers (subsequently an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced past a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to preclude delays in new scientific discipline reaching the academic community 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 and so they can publish their own similar work showtime (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 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, not on subjective determinants of 'impact', 'novelty' or 'involvement' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing program" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that requite them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option 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 improve the peer review organisation (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease back-up in the peer review procedure so that the fourth dimension lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into inquiry (35). According to Keith Collier, over fifteen meg hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are later on submitted to a less prestigious periodical where they are reviewed once again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are ofttimes rejected multiple times before they notice the correct lucifer. This procedure could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to assistance authors cull the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time earlier their newspaper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by 3 expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the writer'due south 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 virtually appropriate periodical for submission is adamant based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The paper is returned to the author in 1-ii weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can then 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 newspaper as information technology shows that 3 experts take recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq besides has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives construction to the peer review procedure, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers as well receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also benefit, every bit they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their ain reviewers, which oftentimes terminate upward rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is contained of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will and so choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's stance, post-publication peer review is probable to become more than prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not equally a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review volition non serve to place errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, in that location 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 whatsoever errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers accept begun and must continue to wait for means of addressing the current bug with peer review to ensure that information technology is a total-proof organisation that ensures simply quality research papers are released into the scientific customs.
REFERENCES
three. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, xx(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, xi(2): 217-226. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Ware M. (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 Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(two): 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(three):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eighteen. 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 Research." Biology and Medicine, one(4): ane-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who'due south Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Intendance Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager Due east, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided hither courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemical science and Laboratory Medicine
macandiehaddince1971.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "Peer-reviewed Scientific Journal Article Is a Not Primary Source True or False?"
Post a Comment