Which of the Following Is a True Statement About Peer-reviewed Articles?
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 October 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
aneClinical 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 Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
1Clinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Ill Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italian republic
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a procedure of subjecting an writer'southward scholarly piece of work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their field of study and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review procedure has likewise been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias past the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to forbid this work from reaching the scientific customs. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is specially of import. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen confronting plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, in that location has not notwithstanding been a foolproof organization developed to accept the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic ways of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online just/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant take a chance to advances in scientific cognition and its time to come potential. The current commodity summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open up access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is divers every bit "a procedure of subjecting an author's scholarly piece of work, enquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve ii primary purposes. Firstly, it acts every bit a filter to ensure that only loftier quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to meliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify whatsoever errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long earlier the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written piece of work since aboriginal Greece (2). The peer review process was start described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Dr. (two). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the country of their patients' medical atmospheric condition upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical quango to make up one's mind whether the medico had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the full general public (3). At this time, 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 Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what somewhen became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (three). In 1665, the French Periodical des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is idea to exist the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), withal, information technology is of import to notation that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time information technology did not 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 research report before publication. The Majestic Club of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review procedure, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject field matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The written report of their identity is non known to the author." (7). The Royal Order of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and adult the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts earlier they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has adult immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific enquiry during this period (seven). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically audio, but likewise to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal's standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by nigh credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication arrangement because it effectively subjects an author'due south piece of work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review too supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advocacy of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic customs unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed periodical (eight). The Establish for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal role of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a enquiry study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental blueprint, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist and so submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a footstep referred to equally pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the bailiwick thing is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written past a apparent source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are as well known as referees (this procedure is summarized in Figure 1). The function of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely way. They must also 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 carefully and scrutinizes information technology to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental pattern, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the piece of 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 whatever scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the newspaper should be accustomed, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee word in club to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that tin can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study'southward telescopic (ix). If the newspaper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the product stage, 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 one.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well equally past scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the bailiwick areas that the periodical covers. Reviewers tin range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Frequently, the immature reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not e'er the instance. On boilerplate, a reviewer will acquit approximately 8 reviews per year, according to a study on peer review past the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals will often have a puddle of reviewers with various backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather big reviewer depository financial institution, so that reviewers practise not become burnt out, overwhelmed or fourth dimension constrained from reviewing multiple manufactures simultaneously.
WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the procedure takes considerable effort, and so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, and so they should review the piece of work of their peers likewise. Reviewers may as well take personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist equally much every bit possible. Others review to keep up-to-engagement with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to practice then. Some scientists employ peer review as an opportunity to advance their own enquiry as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign function of their customs, as sometimes reviewers who prove dedication to the periodical are later hired as editors. Some scientists run across peer review as a adventure to become aware of the latest research earlier their peers, and thus be kickoff to develop new insights from the textile. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable equally it is often noted on 1'due south resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'south involvement in peer review when assessing their functioning for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can besides exist an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (v).
ARE REVIEWERS Groovy TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Scientific discipline at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were bang-up to peer review (12). One 3rd of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upwards to five papers per year, and an boosted one third of respondents were happy to review upwards to ten.
HOW LONG DOES Information technology TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), nevertheless, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to accept taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO 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 (xiii). After logging into the arrangement using an institutional login (eg. from the Academy of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can exist entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the periodical, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the periodical 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 outset determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature browse of review manufactures.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the championship, followed past the abstruse, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The championship must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the championship is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and curtailed. A study past the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford Academy Printing in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a pregnant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually guess whether an article volition be of interest to them based on the title and the writer, while xiii% of respondents claimed to e'er be able to practise so (14).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, primal results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consistent with the residual of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could decide whether an commodity would exist of interest to them based on the abstract lonely 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time (fourteen). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known almost the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the written report's purpose and 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 inquiry 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 it to echo the experiment (fifteen). Methods are written in the by tense and in the agile voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer'due south task 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 sentence, bias or estimation (xv). This section can include statistical tests performed on the information, likewise as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient item, 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 (xv). The peer reviewer will as well make certain that table and effigy 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. Hither, the results are interpreted and related to by studies (xv). The give-and-take 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 also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for futurity research (15). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the word addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the report.
The references are found at the finish of the paper, and listing all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the groundwork, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order 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 newspaper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. Afterwards thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether information technology meets the journal's standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the superlative 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the risk of success in the peer review procedure, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open up to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes fabricated in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, but the writer's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and writer are kept bearding. Open up peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). Information technology encourages reviewers to be open up and honest without existence disrespectful. Open reviewing too discourages plagiarism amongst authors (ii). On the other paw, open up peer review tin also preclude reviewers from being honest for fright of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in social club to be polite (two). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author's work, in which case the reviewer may exist hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their relationship with a superior (two). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors observe that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the same report by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (vii).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC report, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with unmarried-blind peer review (7). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more than likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (two). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author (2). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own enquiry may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data get-go (2).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from beingness biased confronting the writer based on their country of origin or previous work (2). This allows the newspaper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Virtually Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be like shooting fish in a barrel for the reviewer to decide the identity of the author based on writing style, subject area affair or self-commendation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author'southward identity from peer reviewers, as 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 18 manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed equally 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). In that location was no perceived deviation in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was oft unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). Notwithstanding, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had unlike results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too minor to be consequential, their report targeted simply biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a dissimilar subject matter (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 not amend review quality (17).
In addition to open up, unmarried-blind and double-blind peer review, in that location are 2 experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are at present 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 Key have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is some other journal launched with this experimental class of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the People's republic of china study had feel with postal service-publication review (seven). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to run into both the article and the reviews as the commodity is being developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism equally the scientific community will already be familiar with the work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in impress (19). Dynamic review also reduces the fourth dimension 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 alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF Open ACCESS JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely mode (xx). Nevertheless, at that place tin be bug regarding the peer review procedure of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly dissimilar versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a imitation author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This report was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall'southward Listing, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a imitation paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that practice not take an constructive peer review system in place, the commodity besides generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which tin can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were ii limitations of the study that made information technology incommunicable to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) at that place was no control grouping (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a not-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the boilerplate acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about l% (7). 20 percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (7). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while just 9% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey past the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and simply 12% claimed to exist 'dissatisfied' (7). The big majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific advice is greatly helped by peer review' (7). There was a similarly high level of back up (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW Effectively
The post-obit are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a common responsibility amongst fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, every bit part of the academic community, to accept function in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the piece of work of others as well, and put attempt into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it exist rejected, but do not go out ad hominem comments. In that location is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to inquire them to comport a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either have or reject. Do non respond to the email, reply to the link.
iv) Be helpful
Suggest how the authors tin can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer'south perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the part of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't make full a review with comments on editorial and typographic bug. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the inquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, propose that information technology exist professionally proof edited as part of the review.
vi) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the writer, equally well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic nearly the piece of work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar likewise high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Exist compassionate
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Exist sensitive and respectful with give-and-take pick and tone in a review.
9) Be open up
Remember that both specialists and generalists tin can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will endeavour to get both specialised and full general reviewers for whatever particular paper to allow for dissimilar perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is non in their expanse of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires construction and logical period. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors likewise as for clarity. Most publishers provide brusque guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; and so provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of statement, and the validity of conclusions drawn. And then provide feedback on way, vocalisation and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author'due south shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect (eleven). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that information technology 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 fourth dimension to think about the paper; they should read information technology in one case, look at least a day, and so re-read it earlier writing the review (11). The APS besides suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well every bit to what edits they observe helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practise reviewing by editing their peers' papers and request a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that immature scientists offer to peer review equally often every bit possible in society to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, merely rather learn by observing their mentors. Co-ordinate to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore attempt to strengthen relationships with periodical editors by offer to review manuscripts (11). The APS besides suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this procedure in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is any department of the manuscript they experience they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatsoever office of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without starting time obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes beyond something they are unsure of in the paper, they tin can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must exist informed of the colleague's aid, and approval must exist obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in society 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 procedure (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must exist 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. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proposition of causation when at that place is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). Information technology is also mutual for authors to suggest that two variables are dissimilar because the effects of one variable are statistically pregnant while the effects of the other variable are non, rather than direct comparison the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and exercise not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete state of the organisms studied (24). Another mutual fault is the author's failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can exist a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are likewise a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce cognition that tin can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original written report, therefore it is meliorate for reviewers to look at the novelty of the thought, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at mitt (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, simply rather carefully identify the problems specific to each newspaper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to comport 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 there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually 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 Journal of the American Medical Clan concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics also contend that peer review is non effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted viii deliberate errors into a newspaper that was virtually ready for publication, and so sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (vii). 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 than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot whatsoever.
Some other 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 whatever newspaper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who adult a elementary figurer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Afterward, a nonsense SCIgen newspaper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that xvi SCIgen nonsense papers had been used past the High german academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the Us Found of Electric and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to notice SCIgen papers and has made it freely bachelor to ensure publishers and briefing organizers do non have nonsense work in the futurity. Information technology is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is oftentimes criticized for being unable to accurately find plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, evolution manager at Sense About Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should discover plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the organisation to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the assistance of journal editors in 2009 to help better this issue (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and assuming enquiry questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, every bit they believe that this piece of work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may upshot in rejection of innovative research, equally some studies may non seem especially potent initially, nevertheless may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the lite of new information (28). Scientists that practice non believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
Another outcome 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.three one thousand thousand papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a enquiry paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are existence accepted as a result. It is at present 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 like note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality enquiry (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more than controversial or specialized work is typically performed past people who are interested and agree similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is probable to exist reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is probable to be accepted every bit credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their brownie is challenged at a after appointment and they are after retracted. Retraction Watch is a website defended to revealing papers that accept been retracted afterwards publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-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 developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one event (32). However, present nigh journals are available online, either exclusively or in add-on to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs (32). Since in that location are no longer page limits to journals, any practiced piece of work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a periodical is no longer a valid alibi that peer reviewers can apply to reject a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such equally getting their own research published showtime.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of grand as an open up access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial cheque to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and so conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to forestall delays in new science reaching the bookish customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). Information technology likewise aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review then they can publish their own similar piece of work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open up peer review, where everything is published, including the proper 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 every bit an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects manufactures to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'bear on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing program" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that requite them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open up peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ besides offers a pre-impress review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which newspaper drafts are reviewed before existence sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an contained peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review procedure so that the time lost in redundant reviewing tin be put dorsum into research (35). Co-ordinate to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, equally papers get rejected from 1 journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed once 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 even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in gild to help authors choose the periodical that is best suited for their manuscript from the outset, thus reducing the time before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates nether an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review past iii skilful academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). One time the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most advisable journal for submission is adamant based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The newspaper is returned to the author in 1-two weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report fastened. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that iii experts have recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq as well has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review procedure, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers likewise receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their fourth dimension (35). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow but higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review volition take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will so cull papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, mail service-publication peer review is probable to become more than prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will non serve to place errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will exist stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has go fundamental in profitable editors in selecting credible, high 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 yet has some flaws and deficiencies, a more than suitable screening method for scientific papers has non notwithstanding been proposed or developed. Researchers accept begun and must proceed to look for ways of addressing the current problems with peer review to ensure that information technology is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
three. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(eight): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
iv. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, xi(ii): 217-226. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Ware 1000. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." Communist china Summary Papers, 4:iv-xx. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ix. 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 Air conditioning., 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]
xix. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, one(4): one-sixteen. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, ane(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(eight): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "Which of the Following Is a True Statement About Peer-reviewed Articles?"
Post a Comment