Peer Reviewers Help Ensure Quality Control in Reporting Scientific Findings
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(iii): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
iClinical 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 Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Sectionalization (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an writer'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 subject field 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 broad-spread use by near journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the procedure to publish new findings and due to perceived bias past the editors and/or reviewers. Inside the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing procedure. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals reply meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts equally a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review procedure is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted class of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics fence that the peer review procedure stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof organization developed to accept the place of peer review, withal, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its futurity potential. The current article summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Central words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined every bit "a procedure of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two principal purposes. Firstly, it acts every bit a filter to ensure that simply high 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 accounted suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to better the quality of their manuscripts, and too identify any errors that need correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was adult 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 (ii). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician (2). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients' medical weather upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the doctor had met the required standards of medical intendance. If the medical council accounted that the advisable standards were non 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 general public (3). At this time, information technology became more of import to regulate the quality of the written cloth 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 first universal method for generating and assessing new science (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Majestic Order were the first scientific journals to systematically publish inquiry results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is idea to be the first journal to formalize the peer review procedure in 1665 (v), even so, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to assistance editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that fourth dimension it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (vi). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the inquiry study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent past correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (7). The Royal Lodge of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed 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 to the lowest degree partly due to the large increment in scientific inquiry during this period (7). Information technology is now used not but to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically audio, merely also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal'south standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is at present standard practice by near credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
Affect OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it finer subjects an author's 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 also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is more often than not not accepted past the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive 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 procedure begins when a scientist completes a research report and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental blueprint, results, and conclusions of the report. The scientist and so submits this paper to a suitable periodical that specializes in a relevant enquiry field, a stride referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the periodical will review the paper to ensure that the subject area affair is in line with that of the journal, and that information technology fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the newspaper 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 also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that in that location 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 it to evaluate the validity of the scientific discipline, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer as well assesses the significance of the enquiry, and judges whether the piece of work volition contribute to advancement in the field past 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 accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor volition mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of sure referee requests, advise areas that can exist strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study'southward telescopic (9). If the paper is accustomed, every bit per suggestion past the peer reviewer, the newspaper goes into the production stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review procedure is presented in Figure i.
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 of operations. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the bailiwick areas that the journal covers. Reviewers tin can range from immature and upwards-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Oft, the young reviewers are the about responsive and deliver the all-time quality reviews, though this is non always the case. On boilerplate, a reviewer will conduct approximately 8 reviews per year, according to a written report on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (seven). Journals volition often have a puddle of reviewers with various backgrounds to allow for many unlike perspectives. They volition also continue a rather large reviewer bank, and so that reviewers do not become burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Do REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to acquit peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some experience an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, and then they should review the piece of work of their peers every bit well. Reviewers may also take personal contacts with editors, and may desire to assist every bit much as possible. Others review to keep upward-to-engagement with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to accelerate their ain research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read virtually new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are peachy on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming role of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are afterwards hired as editors. Some scientists meet peer review every bit a chance to go enlightened of the latest research earlier their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career evolution, peer reviewing can exist desirable equally it is often noted on one'southward resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'southward involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (xi). Peer reviewing can likewise be an effective way for a scientist to testify their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense Virtually Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, establish that 90% of reviewers were keen 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 ane third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.
HOW LONG DOES Information technology Take TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?
On average, it takes approximately half-dozen hours to review ane paper (12), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. 1 in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to have taken more 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Determine IF A Journal IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides data on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). After logging into the organisation using an institutional login (eg. from the Academy of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the periodical is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
Equally previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer volition and so consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature browse of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review commonly follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstruse, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that information technology is clear and curtailed. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a meaning role in determining reader interest, equally 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will exist of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while xiii% of respondents claimed to e'er be able to practice so (14).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the written report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstruse is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the newspaper. The NAR report indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could estimate an article based on the abstruse eighty-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to appraise 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 order to identify why the question existence studied is of interest to the scientific customs, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the study's purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are conspicuously identifiable.
The methods department describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section too includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should exist detailed plenty that it tin be used information technology to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the past tense and in the agile voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to respond the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, information technology is the peer reviewer's chore to identify what details need to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without sentence, bias or interpretation (fifteen). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, equally well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their brownie. Reviewers also ostend that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the significant and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may besides provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (xv). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is articulate and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and applied applications of the study.
The references are found at the terminate of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered co-ordinate to the club in which they announced in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they decide whether it meets the periodical'southward standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field (xvi) 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 Effigy two.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increment the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the periodical guidelines earlier submission. The writer 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 more often than not conducted in one of three means: open review, single-bullheaded review, or double-blind 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 author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. 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). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism among authors (2). On the other paw, open peer review tin can besides prevent reviewers from beingness honest for fright of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone downwardly their criticisms in order to be polite (2). This is peculiarly true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author'due south work, in which example the reviewer may exist hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology volition damper their relationship with a superior (two). According to the Sense About Scientific discipline survey, editors discover that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of lilliputian value (12). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open up peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is by far the well-nigh common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-blind peer review (vii). This method is advantageous every bit the reviewer is more than likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (two). This allows the reviewer to brand contained decisions without the influence of the author (2). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in gild to publish their own data first (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from beingness biased confronting the author based on their land 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 writer. The Sense Most Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers retrieve double-bullheaded peer review is a skillful idea (12), and the Red china survey indicates that 45% of authors take had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of enquiry, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject affair or self-commendation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking writer identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and 18 manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived divergence in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was ofttimes unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they plant that when writer identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their report targeted just biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter (17). Additionally, in that location were problems 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 non improve review quality (17).
In improver to open, unmarried-bullheaded and double-blind peer review, at that place are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Primal have enabled scientists to mail service comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is some other periodical launched with this experimental class of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the Red china study had experience with mail service-publication review (seven). Another experimental form of peer review chosen 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 (xix). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to meet both the commodity and the reviews as the article is beingness developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community volition already exist familiar with the work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in impress (19). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An instance of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (nineteen). These alternative forms of peer review are nevertheless 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 up access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they let the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Withal, there can be bug regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly dissimilar versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a not-real 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 before publication in comparing to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall's List, a listing of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on fiscal interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful information on the bug associated with lower quality publishers that do not accept an effective peer review system in identify, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. In that location were ii limitations of the study that fabricated it impossible to accurately decide the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal Credence RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance charge per unit for papers submitted to scientific journals is well-nigh 50% (7). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accustomed are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (vii). Of the l% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the asking for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey by the Cathay, 64% of academics are satisfied with the electric current arrangement of peer review, and but 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (seven). The big majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (7). There was a similarly high level of support (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 exist an constructive peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an adept on the subject (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the bookish community, to accept office in peer review. If 1 is to expect others to review their piece of work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others equally well, and put try into information technology.
ii) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, merely do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to existence ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to deport a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either have or refuse. Practise non respond to the e-mail, respond to the link.
4) Exist helpful
Advise how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the writer on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer'due south perspective.
five) 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 calculation value with scientific noesis and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.
six) 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 periodical and the author, every bit well as to non develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
seven) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic virtually the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar as well loftier for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are likewise ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be compassionate
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with give-and-take option and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors volition endeavor to go both specialised and general reviewers for any detail paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has adamant they have a valid and useful part to play, even if the newspaper is not in their surface area of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical period. A reviewer should proofread their review earlier submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors also every bit for clarity. Most publishers provide brusk guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the newspaper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on way, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In improver, the American Physiology Lodge (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor'south and writer'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 it provides articulate explanations to support recommendations. To exist helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think nigh the newspaper; they should read it once, wait at to the lowest degree a solar day, and then re-read it earlier writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, equally well equally to what edits they find helpful, in gild to larn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty fellow member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review equally oft as possible in order to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees exercise not get formal grooming in peer review, merely rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore attempt to strengthen relationships with periodical editors by offering to review manuscripts (eleven). The APS as well suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable near (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 further feedback on that department. The peer reviewer is non permitted to share any role of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the discipline thing) without beginning obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes beyond something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to attempt and gain insight. It is of import for scientists to remember that if a newspaper can be improved by the expertise of i of their colleagues, the journal must exist informed of the colleague'due south help, and approval must be 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). Information technology is the chore of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is enlightened of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). One time the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Nigh of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proffer of causation when there is simply support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a lilliputian question (24). It is likewise common for authors to advise that two variables are dissimilar considering the furnishings of one variable are statistically pregnant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do non control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete country of the organisms studied (24). Another mutual fault is the author's failure to define terms or use words with precision, every bit these practices tin can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements well-nigh specific citations are as well a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce noesis that tin be practical to areas of science outside the scope of the original written report, therefore it is ameliorate for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the newspaper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better do for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be incorrect, only rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review finer is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written past Frederic M. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website nether the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is niggling show that the process actually works, that it is actually an constructive screen for expert quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. Every bit a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Clan concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics besides contend that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a newspaper that was almost ready for publication, and so sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the newspaper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted past reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than v 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 take any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more than papers they have, the more money they can make from writer registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by 3 MIT graduate students past the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who adult a simple estimator program chosen SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them every bit scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that xvi SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German bookish publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute 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 exercise non accept nonsense piece of work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is frequently criticized for existence unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense Well-nigh Scientific discipline, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers call back peer review should discover plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) retrieve it is capable. The bookish time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the assist of journal editors in 2009 to help better this issue (27).
It has besides 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 research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, equally they believe that this work volition likely exist rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative enquiry, every bit some studies may non seem particularly strong initially, however may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined nether different circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that do not believe in peer review fence that the procedure stifles the evolution of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh noesis and new developments into the scientific customs.
Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that demand reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 one thousand thousand papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could non have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are beingness accepted as a result. It is at present possible to publish any newspaper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the newspaper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish whatever high quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more than controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions every bit the writer, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed past fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as apparent, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a afterwards engagement and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website defended to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (xxx).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is too criticized for beingness 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 inquiry and teaching, for which they are paid (31). Equally described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed equally a ways of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could impress in one issue (32). Notwithstanding, nowadays most journals are bachelor online, either exclusively or in improver to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, whatsoever good work can and should be published. Consequently, existence selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to decline a paper (32). Withal, some reviewers take used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published start.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 past Faculty of thou as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (afterward an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), then conducts transparent mail service-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to forestall delays in new science reaching the academic customs that are acquired past prolonged publication times (32). Information technology as well 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 work offset (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial determination messages (32).
PeerJ was founded past Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open up 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 'impact', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing programme" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ besides 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 likewise offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed earlier existence sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review organization (35). Rubriq is intended to subtract redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing tin be put dorsum into enquiry (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers go rejected from i journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors oft have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are oft rejected multiple times before they find the right lucifer. This process could take months or fifty-fifty years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in society to help authors choose the periodical that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the fourth dimension before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the writer pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three adept academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are besides screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the well-nigh appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can and then submit their paper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Written report will requite the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper equally it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes information technology 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 time (35). Journals also benefit, every bit they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often stop upwardly rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to exist sent to their peer reviewers (35).
Co-ordinate to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new management, in which all papers volition be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will and then choose papers that they discover relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers equally a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, mail-publication peer review is probable to become more prevalent equally a complement to pre-publication peer review, only not every bit a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud simply will provide an additional measurement of touch (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting enquiry papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or bug present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current bug with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures simply quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, xx(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(ii): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware M. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, 4:4-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(ii): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(one): three-vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Air-conditioning., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Meliorate Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eighteen. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-xvi. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Admission Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(i): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who'southward Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):threescore-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Push button: How to Get a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Intendance Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager Due east, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided hither courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "Peer Reviewers Help Ensure Quality Control in Reporting Scientific Findings"
Post a Comment