Web Content Involves Modeling Authoring Editing Reviewing Approving Versioning and Compering
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(three): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
iClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
oneClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
aneClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
twoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
iiiChair, Communications and Publications Partitioning (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to command the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior good review. Despite its wide-spread use past well-nigh journals, the peer review procedure has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the procedure to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific customs, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. Information technology helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts every bit a filter to preclude this piece of work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed manufactures provide a trusted class of scientific advice. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review procedure stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, in that location has not nevertheless been a foolproof system developed to accept the identify of peer review, however, researchers have 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 meaning chance to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The electric current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with dissimilar types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open up access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined every bit "a process 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 ii chief purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, particularly in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify whatsoever errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly periodical. In fact, the peer review procedure is idea to accept been used as a method of evaluating written work since aboriginal Greece (2). 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 conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized past a local medical quango to decide whether the doc had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were non met, the doc in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to exist distributed to the general public (3). At this fourth dimension, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known equally the first universal method for generating and assessing new scientific discipline (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (three). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Guild were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the kickoff journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (v), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors determine which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that fourth dimension it did not serve to ensure the validity of the enquiry (6). It did non take long for the peer review procedure to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research written report before publication. The Majestic 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." (seven). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (vi).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second Globe War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period (7). It is now used not merely to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, simply also to determine which papers sufficiently encounter the periodical's standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential role 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 organisation considering it effectively subjects an author's work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality inquiry that will advance the field. Peer review as well supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of scientific discipline. A scientific hypothesis or statement is by and large not accepted past the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) but considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Bear on Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal office of scientific advice for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the bailiwick thing is in line with that of the periodical, 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 transport the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are likewise known as referees (this process is summarized in Effigy 1). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review procedure. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely mode. They must also ensure that in that location are no conflicts of involvement involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review procedure
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the ceremoniousness of the methods used. The reviewer besides assesses the significance of the enquiry, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify whatsoever 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 periodical. The editor volition mediate writer-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the report's scope (ix). If the paper is accepted, every bit per suggestion past the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized noesis on the content of the manuscript, every bit well as by scientists with a more full general noesis base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the bailiwick areas that the journal covers. Reviewers tin can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to erstwhile masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the nearly responsive and evangelize the best quality reviews, though this is not e'er the instance. On average, a reviewer will behave approximately viii reviews per year, co-ordinate to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (China) (vii). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with various backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will likewise go on a rather big reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not go burnt out, overwhelmed or fourth dimension constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to acquit peer reviews and the process takes considerable try, 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, then they should review the piece of work of their peers besides. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may desire to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to practice then. Some scientists employ peer review every bit an opportunity to advance their ain research as information technology stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are swell on edifice associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are afterwards hired as editors. Some scientists run across peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest enquiry before their peers, and thus be commencement to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as information technology is often noted on one'due south resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'south involvement in peer review when assessing their functioning for promotions (xi). Peer reviewing tin also exist an constructive way for a scientist to evidence their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Groovy TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense Near Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). I 3rd of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to x.
HOW LONG DOES It TAKE TO REVIEW One Paper?
On average, information technology takes approximately vi hours to review 1 newspaper (12), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. Ane in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to take taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Determine IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including data regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). Afterward logging into the organisation using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers can exist entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is however actively publishing. The blackness book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
Every bit previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject area matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the enquiry question is important and original, a process which may be aided past 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, word, conclusions, and references. The title must exist descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the written report. The peer reviewer evaluates if the championship is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. 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 significant role in determining reader involvement, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an commodity will be of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while xiii% of respondents claimed to ever be able to do 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 study. 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 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstruse alone lx-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an commodity based on the abstract fourscore-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract lone is often used to appraise the value of an commodity.
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 involvement to the scientific customs, and what gap in knowledge the written report aims to fill up (15). The introduction identifies the study'southward 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 section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should exist detailed enough that information technology can exist used information technology to repeat the experiment (fifteen). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods department, it is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details need to be added.
The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without sentence, bias or interpretation (15). This department tin include statistical tests performed on the information, every bit well as figures and tables in improver to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm 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 data accurately.
The discussion section is where the information is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (fifteen). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may besides provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future inquiry (15). The word should stop with a conclusions department that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the give-and-take is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, whatever anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous enquiry, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the written report.
The references are found at the end of the newspaper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or translate results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical guild co-ordinate to author terminal name, or numbered according to the society 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. Afterwards thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they decide whether information technology meets the periodical's standards for publication,
and whether it falls inside the top 25% of papers in its field (16) to decide priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the run a risk of success in the peer review procedure, the author must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open up to criticism and suggested revisions, and larn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Different TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in i of 3 means: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know ane another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, but the author'south identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, beingness careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open up reviewing as well discourages plagiarism amid authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review can as well prevent reviewers from existence honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in club to be polite (2). This is specially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author's work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their human relationship with a superior (ii). According to the Sense Nearly Science survey, editors detect that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, simply 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open up peer review (vii).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most mutual. In the PRC written report, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-bullheaded peer review (7). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more than probable to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (two). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the writer (ii). The principal disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects like to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their ain information first (2).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous equally it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their state 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 Almost Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers call back double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, information technology can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (2).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, equally 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 author identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived deviation in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous written report conducted by McNutt et al. had different results (xviii). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they institute that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this deviation was too small to exist consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a dissimilar bailiwick affair (17). Additionally, there 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 amend review quality (17).
In addition to open up, single-blind and double-blind peer review, in that location are ii 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 case, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central take enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another periodical launched with this experimental course of peer review. Simply viii% of authors surveyed in the People's republic of china study had feel with mail-publication review (vii). Another experimental course of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has as well emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the commodity is existence developed (nineteen). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific customs will already exist familiar with the work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in print (xix). Dynamic review besides reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily past physicists (xix). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are decumbent to error.
PEER REVIEW OF Open Admission JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop equally they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, there can be bug regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly unlike versions of a fictional scientific newspaper (written past a false author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This report was performed in social club to make up one's mind whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this written report were selected from the Directory of Open up Admission Journals (DOAJ) and Biall'southward List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a simulated paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this report highlights useful data on the bug associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an constructive peer review system in identify, the commodity as well generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. In that location were two limitations of the study that fabricated it impossible to accurately decide the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the imitation papers were sent to a non-randomized option of journals, resulting in bias.
Periodical ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average credence charge per unit for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% (7). Twenty pct of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and xxx% are rejected following review (7). Of the fifty% accepted, 41% are accustomed with the condition of revision, while only nine% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW System
Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the electric current system of peer review, and just 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (seven). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the argument that 'scientific advice is greatly helped past peer review' (7). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (vii).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are ten tips on how to exist an effective peer reviewer as indicated past Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
1) Be professional person
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among beau scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to await others to review their piece of work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others likewise, and put effort into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, advise that information technology be rejected, but practise not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to enquire them to conduct a peer review, the bulk of journals volition provide a link to either take or decline. Do non respond to the email, reply to the link.
4) Exist helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the writer on what is expert and what needs piece of work from the reviewer'south perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, non an editor for proofreading or determination-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 brownie of the research conducted and conclusions fatigued. If the newspaper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that information technology exist professionally proof edited as office of the review.
vi) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rails 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 author, too equally to not develop a reputation of beingness belatedly for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic almost the piece of work presented, the changes they suggest and their part. Peer reviewers may ready the bar too loftier for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too aggressive and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Exist sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Remember 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 allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has adamant they have a valid and useful part to play, fifty-fifty if the newspaper is not in their area of expertise.
ten) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors besides 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 menstruum of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to better.
In add-on, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor'south and author's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and await (11). To delight the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on fourth dimension, and that it provides clear explanations to back upwardly recommendations. To be helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to recall about the newspaper; they should read it one time, look at to the lowest degree a day, and and then re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in society to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offering to peer review equally frequently every bit possible in order to become skilled at the procedure (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practise not get formal training in peer review, but rather acquire by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore endeavor to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (xi). The APS also 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 simply annotate on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide farther feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more than knowledgeable in the subject affair) 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 attempt and proceeds insight. Information technology is important for scientists to recollect that if a paper can be improved past the expertise of 1 of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague'due south assistance, and approval must exist obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is accordingly credited for whatsoever contributions (23). It is the task of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review procedure (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically past the reviewers (23).
Mutual ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, proposition of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are dissimilar considering the effects 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 practice not control for information technology, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another mutual error is the author's failure to define terms or utilize words with precision, every bit these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements virtually specific citations are as well a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce cognition that can be applied to areas of scientific discipline outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at manus (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is more often than not better do for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could exist wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to comport peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written past Frederic Yard. Hoppin, Jr. Information technology can be accessed through the American Physiological Lodge website under the Peer Review Resource section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that information technology is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that information technology actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 written report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its furnishings are uncertain' (25). Critics as well argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment past Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, then sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is non conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining big numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more than money they tin make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who adult a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). After, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used past the German bookish publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Plant of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations accept been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and briefing organizers do not accept nonsense piece of work in the future. Information technology is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/principal.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for existence unable to accurately detect plagiarism. Yet, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included equally a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers call back peer review should notice plagiarism (81%) only just a minority (38%) think information technology is capable. The bookish fourth dimension 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 help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative inquiry ideas and bold inquiry questions that have the potential to make major advances and epitome shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly stiff initially, notwithstanding may exist capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the low-cal of new data (28). Scientists that do non believe in peer review contend 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 result that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (i.three 1000000 papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a inquiry paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted every bit a result. It is now possible to publish whatever paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a similar notation, the U.s. National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in culling medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any high quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and agree similar views or opinions equally the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to exist reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as apparent, though other scientists may notice the paper to exist nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, only their credibility is challenged at a later engagement and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Sentinel is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted later on publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for existence a delay to the broadcasting of new noesis into the scientific community, and every bit an unpaid-action that takes scientists' fourth dimension away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as inquiry and education, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue (32). Even so, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals accept very limited printing runs (32). Since at that place are no longer page limits to journals, any proficient piece of work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers tin use to reject a paper (32). Even so, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own enquiry published first.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in Jan 2013 by Kinesthesia of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has non been plagiarised), and so conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new scientific discipline reaching the bookish customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). It too aims to make peer reviewing more than fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review and then they tin can publish their own like 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 decision 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 simply on scientific and methodological soundness, non on subjective determinants of 'impact', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the pick to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published commodity (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed earlier being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to better the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process then that the fourth dimension lost in redundant reviewing can be put dorsum into research (35). Co-ordinate to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers go rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors ofttimes take to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are oft rejected multiple times before they discover the right match. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in guild to aid authors choose the periodical that is best suited for their manuscript from the start, thus reducing the fourth dimension earlier their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates nether an author-pay model, in which the writer pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three skilful academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The bulk of the author's 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 most appropriate periodical for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the author in one-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as 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 consequent and efficient, which decreases fourth dimension and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers as well receive feedback on their reviews and near significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end upwards rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only college-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new management, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals volition then choose papers that they discover relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers equally a collection (32). In this procedure, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier'due south opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to get more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud merely volition provide an additional measurement of affect (35). Collier as well believes that every bit journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
Concluding REMARKS
Peer review has get fundamental in profitable editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not all the same been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that information technology is a total-proof organization that ensures just quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
four. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Thou. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(ii): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware K. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." Cathay Summary Papers, four:4-xx. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(ii): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
nine. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(ane): 3-vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Air conditioning., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Furnishings of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar Chiliad. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biological science and Medicine, 1(four): 1-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open up Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Agape of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Go a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
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 "Web Content Involves Modeling Authoring Editing Reviewing Approving Versioning and Compering"
Post a Comment