Most Valid Groups of Scientists for Peer Review
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, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
aneClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been defined equally a procedure of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their field of study and to control the broadcasting of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread utilise by most journals, the peer review process has too 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 go an essential component of the bookish writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals reply meaningful inquiry questions and draw authentic conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts equally a filter to prevent this piece of work from reaching the scientific community. The major reward of a peer review procedure is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted grade 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 debate that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen confronting plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not even so been a foolproof system adult to have the place of peer review, nevertheless, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant run a risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its hereafter potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an writer'southward scholarly work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two main purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality enquiry is published, specially in reputable journals, past determining the validity, significance and originality of the written report. Secondly, peer review is intended to better the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and too place any errors that demand correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly periodical. In fact, the peer review process is thought to take been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review procedure was first described by a doc named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his volume Ethics of the Physician (2). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the land of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following handling, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to make up one's mind whether the physician had met the required standards of medical intendance. If the medical council deemed that the advisable standards were non met, the doc in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (two).
The invention of the printing printing in 1453 immune written documents to be distributed to the full general public (3). At this time, it became more than important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the start universal method for generating and assessing new science (iii). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (iv). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to exist the get-go journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), notwithstanding, it is important to annotation that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (6). It did not have long for the peer review process to evolve, and presently thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research report earlier publication. The Regal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the post-obit peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent past correspondence are distributed co-ordinate to the subject matter to those members who are well-nigh versed in these matters. The study of their identity is non known to the author." (vii). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized course has developed immensely since the 2d World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this flow (vii). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, just also to decide which papers sufficiently run into the journal'south standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is now standard do by well-nigh credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the brownie and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has go the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it finer subjects an author'south work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality enquiry that volition advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or argument is generally not accepted past the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Touch on Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal office of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
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 study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable periodical that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the periodical, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers laissez passer this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the newspaper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written past a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are too known equally referees (this process is summarized in Effigy 1). The part of the editor is to select the most advisable 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 way. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review procedure.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads information technology carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental blueprint, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field past 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 incorrect. Peer reviewers requite recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accustomed, rejected, or improved before publication in the periodical. The editor volition mediate writer-referee discussion in order to analyze the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the report's telescopic (9). If the newspaper is accepted, as per proposition by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, besides every bit by scientists with a more full general knowledge base of operations. Peer reviewers can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers tin range from young and upwardly-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Ofttimes, the immature reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the all-time quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On boilerplate, a reviewer will acquit approximately viii reviews per year, according to a study on peer review past the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals will often take a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many unlike perspectives. They volition also go along a rather large reviewer banking concern, and then that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Practice REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to carry peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some experience an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, and so they should review the work of their peers every bit well. Reviewers may too have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to proceed up-to-appointment with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists apply peer review as an opportunity to accelerate their ain enquiry every bit it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are corking on edifice associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become enlightened of the latest research before their peers, and thus exist commencement to develop new insights from the cloth. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is ofttimes noted on 1'southward resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (v).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the clemency Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that xc% of reviewers were peachy to peer review (12). One tertiary of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upward to 5 papers per year, and an boosted ane 3rd of respondents were happy to review upwardly to x.
HOW LONG DOES Information technology TAKE TO REVIEW ONE Newspaper?
On average, information technology takes approximately six hours to review ane paper (12), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense Well-nigh Science" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (thirteen). After logging into the arrangement 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 book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first decide if the subject affair is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer volition then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may exist aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review ordinarily follow a specific structure that begins with the championship, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, give-and-take, 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 clear and concise. A report past the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Printing in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually estimate whether an article will exist of interest to them based on the title and the author, while xiii% of respondents claimed to always be able to do and then (14).
The abstract is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consequent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could gauge an article based on the abstruse fourscore-100% of the fourth dimension (xiv). This demonstrates that the abstruse alone is often used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in guild to place why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in cognition the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the written report's purpose and telescopic, briefly describes the full general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (xv). 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 enough that it can be used it to echo the experiment (15). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the advisable methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer'southward job to identify what details need to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (15). This department can include statistical tests performed on the information, equally well equally figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient particular, and determines their brownie. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consequent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will also make certain 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 research 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 discussion should finish 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 report, any anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.
The references are found at the end of the paper, and listing all of the information sources cited in the text to draw the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author final name, or numbered according to the order in which they announced in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is conspicuously written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal's standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field (16) to make up one's mind priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy two.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the chance of success in the peer review procedure, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the periodical 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, single-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open up review, both the author of the newspaper and the peer reviewer know one some other'due south identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, simply the author'southward identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept bearding. Open peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open up reviewing besides discourages plagiarism amid authors (2). On the other paw, open up peer review can also forestall reviewers from existence honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in club to exist polite (two). This is peculiarly true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer'southward work, in which example the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fright that it will damper their relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense Nigh Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of piddling value (12). In the aforementioned study by the Communist china, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (seven).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with unmarried-blind peer review (7). 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 brand contained decisions without the influence of the author (two). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects like to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in guild to publish their own data first (2).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from existence biased against the author based on their land of origin or previous piece of work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Well-nigh Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers call back double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the Red china survey indicates that 45% of authors have had feel with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-bullheaded peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be piece of cake for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, every bit is the case in double-blind review, is more often than not thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity afflicted the quality of the review (17). One hundred and eighteen 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 oftentimes unsuccessful, particularly with well-known authors (17). Still, a previous study conducted past McNutt et al. had different results (xviii). In this instance, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly college (eighteen). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too modest to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a dissimilar subject area affair (17). Additionally, there were issues masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking writer identity from reviewers may non meliorate review quality (17).
In add-on to open up, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and mail service a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to mail comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (ten). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Merely eight% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had feel with mail-publication review (vii). Some other experimental grade of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has as well emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on manufactures in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed (xix). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific customs will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (nineteen). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between 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 (19). These alternative forms of peer review are even so un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and notwithstanding highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF Open Access JOURNALS
Open up access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they permit the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nonetheless, there can be problems regarding the peer review procedure of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific newspaper (written by a fake author, working out of a not-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in lodge to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this report were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall'due south List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a fake paper, suggesting that credence was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this written report highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review organisation in place, the commodity also generalizes the written report results to all OA journals, which can exist detrimental to the full general perception of OA journals. In that location were two limitations of the study that made information technology impossible to accurately determine the human relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) in that location was no command group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the faux 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 virtually fifty% (seven). Xx percent of the submitted manuscripts that are non accustomed are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected post-obit review (7). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the status of revision, while simply ix% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organisation
Based on a recent survey past the Communist china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and but 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (7). At that place was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides command in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are x tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer equally indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the bailiwick (22):
one) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibleness amidst beau scientists, and scientists are expected, equally part of the academic customs, to take office in peer review. If i is to await others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the piece of work of others as well, and put endeavor into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, advise that it be rejected, only practice not leave advertizing hominem comments. There is no do good to existence ruthless.
three) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Practise not reply to the email, reply to the link.
4) Exist helpful
Advise how the authors tin can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the writer on what is adept and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or controlling. Don't fill up a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on calculation value with scientific cognition and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, advise that it exist professionally proof edited as office of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rails who is reviewing what and when and volition know if someone is tardily on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, also every bit to not develop a reputation of being belatedly for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic near the work presented, the changes they advise and their role. Peer reviewers may gear up the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
eight) Exist empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with discussion pick and tone in a review.
ix) Be open up
Call up that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to go both specialised and general reviewers for any detail paper to allow for dissimilar perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they accept a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.
10) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors equally well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Brainstorm with an overview of the proposed improvements; so provide feedback on the paper construction, the quality of information sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of statement, and the validity of conclusions drawn. So provide feedback on way, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to amend.
In improver, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and writer'due south shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and wait (xi). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on fourth dimension, and that it provides articulate explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer take time to recollect about the paper; they should read information technology one time, await at to the lowest degree a day, and then re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, equally well as to what edits they find helpful, in club to learn how to peer review effectively (xi). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a kinesthesia fellow member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review equally often as possible in order to go skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, i acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offer 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 procedure in improving scientific discipline (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If in that location is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide farther feedback on that department. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject field affair) without showtime 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 attempt and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of i of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague'south help, and approving must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). Information technology is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (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, 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, proffer of causation when there is only back up for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a little question (24). It is also common for authors to suggest that 2 variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the 2 variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and exercise not control for information technology, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another mutual 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 be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements nigh specific citations are also a mutual occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that tin be applied to areas of scientific discipline outside the telescopic of the original written report, therefore information technology is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, information, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is more often than not meliorate practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could exist wrong, but rather advisedly identify 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 paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It 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 in that location is fiddling show that the process actually works, that it is actually an constructive screen for practiced quality scientific piece of work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ended, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics also argue that peer review is non effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this betoken, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a newspaper that was most fix for publication, and and so sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any newspaper sent in, regardless of its brownie or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more than coin they tin can make from writer registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by iii MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them every bit scientific papers (26). Later, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the High german academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published past the Usa Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and briefing organizers do non accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately observe plagiarism. Withal, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained past Alice Tuff, evolution managing director at Sense About Science, 'The vast bulk of authors and reviewers recall peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think information technology 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 assist of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this effect (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research 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 epitome shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may event in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether dissimilar circumstances, or in the low-cal of new information (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the procedure stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific customs.
Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that in that location are a express number of people that are competent to behave peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.iii million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers bachelor could non take reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are existence accepted every bit a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality 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 agree similar views or opinions as the author, which tin cause bias in their review. For instance, a newspaper on homeopathy is likely to exist reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to exist accustomed as credible, though other scientists may detect the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, just their brownie is challenged at a later appointment and they are afterwards retracted. Retraction Watch is a website defended to revealing papers that have been retracted later on publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific customs, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described past Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally adult as a ways of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue (32). All the same, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals accept very limited printing runs (32). Since in that location are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can utilize to turn down a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this alibi when they have personal ulterior motives, such every bit getting their ain inquiry published first.
Contempo INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access periodical that immediately publishes papers (later on an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), so conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new scientific discipline reaching the academic community that are acquired past prolonged publication times (32). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar piece of 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 messages (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open admission, 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 'interest' (34). Information technology works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open up peer review, and authors are given the option to mail the total peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ besides offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which newspaper drafts are reviewed before existence 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 organization (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review procedure and then that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each yr to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from ane periodical and are after submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times earlier they find the right friction match. This process could take months or fifty-fifty years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in gild to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the get-go, thus reducing the time earlier their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an writer-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by iii expert bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the writer'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 three experts, the near 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 and then submit their paper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Study attached. The Rubriq Report volition give the periodical editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts accept recommended the newspaper to them (35). Rubriq likewise has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and about significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end upwardly rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and permit but higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
Co-ordinate to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new management, in which all papers volition be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they notice relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers equally a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier'southward stance, mail service-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 volition not serve to place errors and fraud but will provide an boosted measurement of touch (35). Collier also believes that every bit journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there volition be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
Last REMARKS
Peer review has become central in assisting editors in selecting apparent, high quality, novel and interesting inquiry papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or problems present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process even so has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not all the same been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to wait for ways of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof arrangement that ensures only quality enquiry papers are released into the scientific customs.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(eight): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(ii): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Ware One thousand. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, 4:iv-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(ii): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): iii-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(iii):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eighteen. 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 Enquiry." Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16. [Google Scholar]
xx. 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'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 Button: How to Go 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(eight): 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]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided hither courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "Most Valid Groups of Scientists for Peer Review"
Post a Comment