Why Is It Important to Use Scholarly Peer Reviewed Sources
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill Children, University 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
iClinical Biochemistry, Department 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 Sectionalisation (CPD), International Federation for Ill Clinical Chemical science (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been defined 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 see the accepted loftier standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior adept review. Despite its broad-spread employ by most journals, the peer review procedure has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias 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 respond meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to forbid this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed manufactures provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific cognition is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly 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 yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, all the same, researchers accept 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 significant chance to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, periodical, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an author'southward scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two chief purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality inquiry is published, peculiarly in reputable journals, past determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to ameliorate 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 any errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was adult long before the scholarly periodical. In fact, the peer review process is thought to take been used every bit a method of evaluating written work since aboriginal Hellenic republic (two). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Physician (two). There, he stated that physicians must accept notes describing the state of their patients' medical weather condition upon each visit. Post-obit treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to decide whether the dr. had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical quango deemed that the advisable standards were not met, the medico in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 immune written documents to be distributed to the general public (3). At this fourth dimension, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Salary wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known equally the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (three). His piece of work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Periodical des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (iv). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Gild is thought to exist the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (five), even so, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors make up one's mind which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did non serve to ensure the validity of the research (6). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the inquiry study earlier publication. The Royal Club 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 subject affair to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is non known to the author." (7). The Imperial Society of London adopted this review process in 1752 and developed the "Commission on Papers" to review manuscripts earlier they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the 2d World War, at least partly due to the big increase in scientific enquiry during this period (7). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but besides to decide which papers sufficiently run into the journal'south standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard exercise by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential function of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication organisation because it finer subjects an author'southward work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce loftier quality research that will accelerate the field. Peer review too supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is by and large not accustomed by the bookish community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (viii). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed equally candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW Procedure
The peer review procedure begins when a scientist completes a enquiry study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the written report. The scientist so submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a pace referred to every bit pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the newspaper to ensure that the subject affair is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors experience the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written past a credible source, they will send the newspaper to achieved researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1). The office of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review procedure. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must as well ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review procedure
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it advisedly and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental pattern, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the enquiry, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by 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 accustomed, rejected, or improved before publication in the periodical. The editor will mediate writer-referee give-and-take in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, propose areas that tin be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the study's telescopic (9). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion 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 process is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, every bit well as past scientists with a more general cognition base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from immature and up-and-coming researchers to sometime masters in the field. Often, the immature reviewers are the well-nigh responsive and evangelize the best quality reviews, though this is not always the instance. On average, a reviewer will deport approximately eight reviews per twelvemonth, co-ordinate to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (vii). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will as well go along a rather big reviewer banking concern, so that reviewers do not become burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple manufactures 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 accept to review at all. Some experience an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers equally well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much every bit possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an constructive way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their ain research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are dandy on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later on hired equally editors. Some scientists encounter peer review as a chance to become enlightened of the latest research before their peers, and thus exist outset to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing tin can be desirable as information technology is often noted on 1's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'due south interest in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can likewise be an effective way for a scientist to prove their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (v).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted past the clemency Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that xc% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). 1 tertiary of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to 5 papers per year, and an additional one tertiary of respondents were happy to review upwardly to x.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW 1 PAPER?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), yet, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Scientific discipline" survey claims to accept taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A Journal IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including data regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). After logging into the organisation using an institutional login (eg. from the Academy of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers tin can exist entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black volume symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
Equally previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will start determine if the bailiwick matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer volition and so consider whether the research 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 structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstruse, 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 report. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive plenty, and ensures that information technology is clear and curtailed. A report by the National Clan of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could commonly judge whether an article will be of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while thirteen% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so (14).
The abstruse is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the groundwork or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR report indicated that forty% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract lonely 60-eighty% of the fourth dimension, 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 inquiry question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to place why the question beingness studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to make full (15). The introduction identifies the study's purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed plenty that it can be used information technology to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the by tense and in the agile vocalization. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to reply the research question, and if they were written with sufficient item. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details demand to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (fifteen). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, every bit well equally figures and tables in improver to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their brownie. Reviewers besides 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 as well brand sure that table and figure captions are advisable both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the 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 enquiry question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may besides provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (xv). 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 also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous enquiry, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.
The references are establish at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to draw the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the commendation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical gild according to writer last 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 clearly written and if the content seems logical. Subsequently thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal'south standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the peak 25% of papers in its field (xvi) to decide priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increment the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open 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 generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, unmarried-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another'due south identity. Alternatively, in unmarried-blind review, the reviewer's identity is kept individual, but the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review can also forestall reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite (ii). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer'due south piece of work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their relationship with a superior (2). Co-ordinate to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of niggling value (12). In the aforementioned written report past the Mainland china, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (seven).
Single-blind peer review is by far the near mutual. In the Cathay study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review (seven). 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 writer (ii). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, even so, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may exist tempted to delay completing the review in club to publish their own data first (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from existence biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work (2). This allows the paper to exist judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Nigh Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers remember double-bullheaded peer review is a proficient idea (12), and the Cathay survey indicates that 45% of authors take had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, information technology tin can sometimes be like shooting fish in a barrel for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing manner, subject matter or self-commendation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, equally is the example in double-bullheaded review, is more often than not idea to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and 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 twoscore manuscripts (17). There was no perceived divergence in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, specially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous report conducted by McNutt et al. had different results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (xviii). Although Justice et al. argued that this deviation was too small to be consequential, their study targeted just biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter (17). Additionally, at that place were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. ended that masking writer identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In addition to open, unmarried-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may exist subjected to post-publication peer review. Every bit many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, appoint in online discussions and postal service a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Merely 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had feel with post-publication review (vii). Another experimental form of peer review chosen Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which let scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to encounter both the article and the reviews as the article is beingness developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps foreclose plagiarism every bit the scientific customs will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (19). Dynamic review as well reduces the time lag betwixt manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (xix). These culling forms of peer review are still united nations-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 up ACCESS JOURNALS
Open admission (OA) journals are condign increasingly popular every bit they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, at that place tin be issues regarding the peer review procedure of open access journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-real institution) to a selected grouping of OA journals. This study was performed in gild 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'southward Listing, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this written report highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that exercise not have an constructive peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the written report results to all OA journals, which tin can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were 2 limitations of the study that made information technology impossible to accurately make up one's mind the relationship between peer review and OA journals: i) in that location was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-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 almost 50% (7). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are non accustomed are rejected prior to review, and xxx% are rejected post-obit review (7). Of the l% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while just 9% are accepted without the request for revision (seven).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organization
Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and merely 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (vii). The big majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific advice is greatly helped past peer review' (seven). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific advice' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW Finer
The following are 10 tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer equally indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among young man scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take office in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others besides, and put effort into information technology.
2) Be pleasant
If the newspaper is of low quality, propose that information technology be rejected, only practice not leave ad hominem comments. In that location is no benefit to existence ruthless.
three) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to enquire them to bear a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.
four) Be 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 issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific cognition and commenting on the credibility of the enquiry conducted and conclusions fatigued. If the newspaper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it exist professionally proof edited as part of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and volition know if someone is tardily on completing a review. Information technology is important to be timely both out of respect for the periodical and the author, as well equally to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
7) Exist realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their part. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too aggressive and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word selection and tone in a review.
nine) Exist open
Retrieve that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will effort to get both specialised and general reviewers for any detail paper to permit for unlike perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has adamant they accept a valid and useful role to play, even if the newspaper is not in their area of expertise.
ten) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review earlier submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors likewise as for clarity. About publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Brainstorm with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the newspaper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of statement, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on fashion, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to ameliorate.
In add-on, the American Physiology Social club (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author'southward shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author demand and expect (xi). To delight the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on fourth dimension, and that it provides clear explanations to support recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think most the paper; they should read it once, wait at to the lowest degree a day, and so re-read information technology before writing the review (xi). The APS likewise suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their work, besides equally to what edits they find helpful, in gild to learn how to peer review finer (eleven). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing past 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 oft every bit possible in order to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practice non get formal training in peer review, only rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (11). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and inferior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving scientific discipline (11).
The peer reviewer should simply comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable nigh (23). If in that location is any section of the manuscript they experience they are non qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and non provide farther feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more than 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 newspaper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to retrieve that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague's aid, and approval must exist obtained for their colleague to read the protected certificate. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for whatever contributions (23). It is the chore of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague profitable is enlightened of the confidentiality of the peer review procedure (23). One time 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, in that location are some mutual scientific errors to look out for. Near of these errors are violations of logic and mutual 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 suggest that two variables are dissimilar because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than straight comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do non control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another common error is the author's failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices tin mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms tin can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a mutual occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore information technology is amend 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 manus (24). Although information technology is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is by and large better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to carry peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic Thou. Hoppin, Jr. Information technology can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website nether the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is really an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that information technology actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Periodical of the American Medical Clan concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics also contend that peer review is not constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted past reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than 5 errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did non spot any.
Some other criticism of peer review is that the process is non conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining big numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more than papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 past 3 MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who adult a uncomplicated reckoner program chosen SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them equally scientific papers (26). After, 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 High german bookish publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated past SCIgen were published past the The states Plant of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations accept been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to find SCIgen papers and has made it freely bachelor to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not take nonsense work in the futurity. Information technology is bachelor at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/chief.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for existence unable to accurately find plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included equally a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, evolution managing director at Sense Almost Scientific discipline, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers remember peer review should find plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would crusade the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue (27).
It has too been argued that peer review has lowered enquiry quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative inquiry ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make 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 effect in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem specially strong initially, yet may exist capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether unlike circumstances, or in the low-cal of new data (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review fence that the procedure 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 conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 one thousand thousand papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), just the number of competent peer reviewers bachelor could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted equally a result. It is now possible to publish any newspaper in an obscure periodical that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or periodical itself could be substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality research (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 concur similar views or opinions every bit the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed past fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as apparent, though other scientists may detect the paper to exist nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their brownie is challenged at a after date and they are later on retracted. Retraction Sentry is a website defended to revealing papers that take been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is likewise criticized for being a filibuster to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-action that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such every bit research and educational activity, for which they are paid (31). Equally described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Manager for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed equally a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one effect (32). All the same, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals accept very express printing runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, whatever skillful work tin and should exist 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 refuse a paper (32). Notwithstanding, some reviewers accept used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such every bit getting their own enquiry published first.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Kinesthesia of thou as an open access journal 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 prevent delays in new science reaching the bookish customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). Information technology also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based merely on scientific and methodological soundness, non on subjective determinants of 'touch', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to mail service the full 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 newspaper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed past Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease back-up in the peer review process so that the fourth dimension lost in redundant reviewing can exist put dorsum into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each twelvemonth to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious periodical where they are reviewed over again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times earlier they detect the correct match. This procedure could take months or fifty-fifty years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to assist authors choose the journal that is all-time suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the fourth dimension before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by iii skilful bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed past the iii experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the writer in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Study attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as information technology shows that three experts have recommended the newspaper to them (35). Rubriq as well has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases fourth dimension and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals too benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often finish upwardly rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow merely higher-quality manufactures to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
Co-ordinate 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 have place that is independent of specific periodical criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will then cull papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this procedure, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more than prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not every bit a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud only will provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has become central in assisting editors in selecting apparent, loftier quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review procedure all the same has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must go along to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof organization that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific customs.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini G. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(2): 217-226. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware Yard. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." Mainland china Summary Papers, 4:4-twenty. [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(one): iii-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Writer Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xviii. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects 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, ane(4): one-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(one): 49-51. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Agape of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Push button: How to Get a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Commodity." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager East, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemical science and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/#:~:text=Peer%20review%20has%20become%20the,that%20will%20advance%20the%20field.
0 Response to "Why Is It Important to Use Scholarly Peer Reviewed Sources"
Postar um comentário