What Four Qualities Do Most Peer-reviewed Articles Have?
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
iClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Segmentation (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been divers as a process of subjecting an author'due south 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 discipline and to control the dissemination of enquiry data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread employ by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and describe accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to forestall this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed manufactures provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific cognition is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is specially important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts equally a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, even so, researchers accept been looking into electronic ways of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant hazard to advances in scientific knowledge and its future 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.
Cardinal words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open admission
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined equally "a procedure of subjecting an author'southward scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (ane). Peer review is intended to serve ii master purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that but high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by 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 also place whatsoever errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since aboriginal Greece (two). The peer review process 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 (two). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Post-obit treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical quango to determine whether the doc had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical quango accounted that the advisable standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing printing in 1453 immune written documents to exist distributed to the 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 kickoff universal method for generating and assessing new science (three). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (iii). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Regal Gild were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (four). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the start journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the enquiry (half-dozen). Information technology 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 study earlier publication. The Imperial Society of Edinburgh adhered to the post-obit peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject thing to those members who are well-nigh versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (7). The Royal Club of London adopted this review process in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (half dozen).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized class has adult immensely since the Second World War, at to the lowest degree partly due to the large increase in scientific inquiry during this menstruation (7). It is at present used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, just besides to determine which papers sufficiently see the journal'southward standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard exercise past nearly credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
Touch on OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication organization because it finer subjects an writer'southward work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that volition advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (viii). The Found for Scientific Information (ISI) just considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a inquiry written report and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, 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 subject matter 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 by a credible source, they will send the paper to achieved researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are as well known every bit referees (this procedure is summarized in Effigy one). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the periodical, and to implement and monitor the peer review procedure. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an constructive and timely mode. They must as well ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes information technology to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, 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 by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the enquiry. Additionally, reviewers place any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the newspaper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are across the study'southward scope (9). If the newspaper is accustomed, as per proffer by the peer reviewer, the newspaper goes into the production stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted past 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 by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, likewise every bit by scientists with a more full general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers tin can range from immature and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and evangelize the all-time quality reviews, though this is not always the example. On boilerplate, a reviewer volition conduct approximately eight reviews per year, co-ordinate to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (China) (seven). Journals will often have a puddle of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather big reviewer banking concern, so that reviewers exercise non go burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to deport peer reviews and the process takes considerable attempt, and then 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, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also accept personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much every bit possible. Others review to continue up-to-appointment with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an constructive way to do so. Some scientists use peer review every bit an opportunity to advance their own research equally information technology stimulates new ideas and allows them to read most new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are dandy on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming function of their community, as sometimes reviewers who testify dedication to the periodical are later on hired as editors. Some scientists run across peer review as a chance to become enlightened of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing tin be desirable as it is often noted on 1's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their operation for promotions (eleven). Peer reviewing can also be an constructive manner for a scientist to prove their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Bang-up 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, plant that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). One tertiary of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upwardly to five papers per yr, and an additional 1 third of respondents were happy to review upwards to ten.
HOW LONG DOES Information technology Take TO REVIEW ONE Paper?
On boilerplate, it takes approximately 6 hours to review one paper (12), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. 1 in every 100 participants in the "Sense Near Science" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A Periodical IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides data on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (thirteen). Subsequently logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and state of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The blackness volume 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 commencement decide if the discipline affair is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will so consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the championship is descriptive enough, and ensures that information technology is articulate and curtailed. A study past the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford Academy Press in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a pregnant part in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could ordinarily judge whether an article volition be of interest to them based on the title and the writer, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to exercise 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 written report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that forty% of respondents could determine whether an article would exist of interest to them based on the abstruse lonely lx-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract fourscore-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract lone 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 social club to identify why the question being studied is of involvement to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the report's purpose and telescopic, briefly describes the full 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 conspicuously identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section besides includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed plenty that it can exist used it to repeat the experiment (fifteen). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the advisable methods were used to reply the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details demand to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the information are explained without sentence, bias or interpretation (fifteen). This department tin can include statistical tests performed on the data, too every bit figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient particular, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consequent with the data presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate 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 department may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for hereafter inquiry (fifteen). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the word is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an advisable estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous enquiry, and the theoretical implications and applied applications of the written report.
The references are found at the cease of the paper, and listing all of the data sources cited in the text to describe the groundwork, methods, and/or translate results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical lodge co-ordinate to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. Later on thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they make up one's mind whether it meets the journal'southward standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the acme 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure two.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the writer must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also exist 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 ane of 3 ways: open up review, unmarried-bullheaded review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the writer of the paper and the peer reviewer know 1 another'southward identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer'south identity is kept private, simply the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept bearding. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (ii). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without beingness disrespectful. Open up reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (ii). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in society to be polite (2). This is specially truthful when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer's work, in which case the reviewer may exist hesitant to provide criticism for fearfulness that it will damper their relationship with a superior (2). Co-ordinate to the Sense About Scientific discipline survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the same study by the Prc, simply 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Unmarried-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-bullheaded peer review (7). This method is advantageous every bit the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (ii). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author (2). The master disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, notwithstanding, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects like to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first (two).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous as information technology prevents the reviewer from being biased confronting the author based on their country of origin or previous 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 About Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers remember double-blind peer review is a skilful idea (12), and the Red china survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (vii). The disadvantage of double-bullheaded peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes exist easy for the reviewer to make up one's mind the identity of the author based on writing style, subject thing or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the writer's identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is by and large 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 every bit normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, specially with well-known authors (17). Withal, a previous written report conducted by McNutt et al. had unlike results (xviii). In this example, 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 divergence was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a unlike subject matter (17). Additionally, at that place were bug masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not better review quality (17).
In addition to open up, single-blind and double-blind peer review, at that place are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to mail-publication peer review. Every bit many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and postal service a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Primal 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 form of peer review. Only eight% of authors surveyed in the Cathay study had experience with postal service-publication review (seven). Some other experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has too emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such every bit Naboj, which let scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to run into both the commodity and the reviews equally the article is being developed (xix). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (19). Dynamic review as well reduces the time lag betwixt manuscript submission and publishing. An case 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 still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and nevertheless highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are decumbent to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN Access JOURNALS
Open up access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific newspaper (written by a fake writer, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected grouping of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed earlier publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this written report were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall's List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a simulated paper, suggesting that credence was based on fiscal involvement rather than the quality of commodity itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful data on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article likewise generalizes the study 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 it incommunicable to accurately decide the human relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: ane) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized choice of journals, resulting in bias.
Periodical ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average credence rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is almost 50% (seven). Xx percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (7). Of the fifty% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only nine% are accepted without the asking for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW System
Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to exist 'dissatisfied' (seven). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (7). In that location was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific advice' (seven).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an practiced on the subject (22):
1) Exist professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as office of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If ane is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put endeavour into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the newspaper is of low quality, advise that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to beingness ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to comport a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or refuse. Do non answer to the email, answer to the link.
4) Be helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer'south perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the enquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that information technology be professionally proof edited as part of the review.
6) Exist timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rail 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, also every bit to not develop a reputation of beingness belatedly for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic near the piece of work presented, the changes they suggest and their function. Peer reviewers may set the bar also loftier for the newspaper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Exist empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.
9) Exist open
Think that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to let for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the newspaper is non in their expanse of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires construction and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors every bit well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of statement, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on way, voice 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's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author demand 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 dorsum up recommendations. To exist helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer accept time to think virtually the paper; they should read it one time, wait at least a twenty-four hours, then re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS as well suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, every bit well as to what edits they observe helpful, in order 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 member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as oftentimes equally possible in guild to go skilled at the process (xi). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practise not become formal grooming in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, ane acquires experience 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 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 but comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is whatever 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 section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever role of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may exist more knowledgeable in the subject thing) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a newspaper can be improved by the expertise of 1 of their colleagues, the periodical must be informed of the colleague's assist, and blessing must exist obtained for their colleague to read the protected certificate. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the task of the reviewer to make certain that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). Once 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, at that place are some mutual scientific errors to look out for. Nigh of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of ane variable are statistically pregnant while the furnishings of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a misreckoning variable and practice not command for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete land of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the author'south failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices tin mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements well-nigh specific citations are besides a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce cognition that can be applied to areas of science exterior the scope of the original study, therefore it is improve for reviewers to look at the novelty of the thought, conclusions, information, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or non the newspaper answered the specific question at manus (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, just rather advisedly place the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if annihilation is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to carry peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic M. Hoppin, Jr. It can exist 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 niggling evidence that the process actually works, that it is really an effective screen for practiced quality scientific work, and that it really improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Periodical of the American Medical Association concluded, '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 signal, an experiment past Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was virtually ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (seven). 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 (xvi%) did not spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the procedure is not conducted thoroughly past scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences frequently take any paper sent in, regardless of its brownie or the prevalence of errors, considering the more papers they accept, the more money they tin can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by 3 MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a elementary computer plan called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen newspaper submitted to a conference was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that 16 SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the Usa Establish of Electrical 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 conference organizers practise not take 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 find plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically exist included equally a component of peer review. Equally explained past Alice Tuff, development director at Sense About Scientific discipline, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers retrieve peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) only only a minority (38%) retrieve 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 business firm Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help amend this consequence (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting inventiveness amongst researchers. Proponents of this view merits that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and assuming research questions that have the potential to make major advances and prototype shifts in the field, as they believe that this work volition likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may effect in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under unlike circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
Some other upshot that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to comport peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (i.3 1000000 papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), merely the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a inquiry newspaper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are existence accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a similar note, the Usa National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish whatever high quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized piece of work is typically performed past people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a newspaper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed past fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, merely their credibility is challenged at a afterward date and they are later on retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that take been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (thirty).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the broadcasting of new cognition into the scientific community, and equally an unpaid-activeness that takes scientists' fourth dimension away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such every bit inquiry and teaching, for which they are paid (31). Every bit described past Eva Amsen, Outreach Manager 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 ane issue (32). Even so, present most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals accept very express printing runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work tin and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid alibi that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this alibi when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own inquiry published starting time.
Contempo INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in Jan 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open up access periodical that immediately publishes papers (later on an initial cheque to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). Information technology also aims to make peer reviewing more than fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they tin can publish their own similar piece of work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open up peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial conclusion letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 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 'bear upon', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing program" 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 full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ too offers a pre-print review service chosen PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed earlier being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an contained peer review service designed past Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to subtract back-up in the peer review procedure then that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over xv meg hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from 1 journal and are later on 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 correct lucifer. This procedure could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the periodical that is best suited for their manuscript from the first, thus reducing the time before their newspaper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the writer pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three skillful academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author'due south fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are likewise screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the nearly appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The newspaper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The writer can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report volition give the periodical editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper equally information technology shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq besides has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consequent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers too receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also do good, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which oftentimes end up rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow but higher-quality manufactures 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 volition exist posted online, and a post-publication peer review will accept place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they detect relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a drove (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent every bit a complement to pre-publication peer review, only not as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud simply volition 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 become fundamental in profitable editors in selecting credible, loftier quality, novel and interesting enquiry papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues nowadays in submitted papers. Though the peer review process withal has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or adult. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the electric current bug with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof arrangement that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific customs.
REFERENCES
three. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, 20(viii): 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, eleven(two): 217-226. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware 1000. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." People's republic of china Summary Papers, four:four-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): iii-vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Ameliorate Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(three):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. 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 One thousand. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(four): 1-xvi. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC gratis 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(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Furnishings of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "What Four Qualities Do Most Peer-reviewed Articles Have?"
Post a Comment