Peer-reviewed Journal Articles Are Always Credible to Use in Academic Writing
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 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 Infirmary for Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
oneClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Section of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Segmentation (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a procedure of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the broadcasting of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are non published without prior practiced review. Despite its wide-spread apply by most journals, the peer review process has as well been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific customs, peer review has become an essential component of the bookish writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful inquiry questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts every bit 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 form 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 contend that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts equally a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof arrangement developed to take the identify of peer review, however, 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 big number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses pregnant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its time to come potential. The current commodity summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Central words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (i). Peer review is intended to serve two chief purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that just high quality inquiry is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to ameliorate the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long earlier the scholarly periodical. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used equally a method of evaluating written work since ancient Hellenic republic (ii). The peer review process was commencement described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Dr. (2). At that place, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical quango to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical quango deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the press 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 bachelor, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what somewhen became known equally the start universal method for generating and assessing new scientific discipline (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 Society were the starting time scientific journals to systematically publish enquiry results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Majestic Club is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review procedure in 1665 (five), however, information technology is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors determine which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the inquiry (6). It did not have 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 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 by correspondence are distributed according to the subject area matter to those members who are about versed in these matters. The study of their identity is non known to the author." (seven). The Purple Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized grade has developed immensely since the Second Earth State of war, at to the lowest degree partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this flow (7). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically audio, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal'south standards of quality and originality earlier publication. Peer review is now standard practice past about credible scientific journals, and is an essential role of determining the brownie and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system considering it effectively subjects an author'southward work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce loftier quality enquiry that volition advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advocacy of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is more often than not not accepted by the academic community unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) merely 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 part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a inquiry study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the written report. The scientist and then submits this newspaper 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 subject matter 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 paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to achieved researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are too known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure one). 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 too ensure that in that location are no conflicts of involvement involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a newspaper, he or she reads information technology carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the piece of work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the enquiry. Additionally, reviewers place any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, advise areas that tin can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (9). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the newspaper goes into the product phase, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review procedure is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the periodical covers. Reviewers tin can range from young and upwardly-and-coming researchers to one-time masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not ever the example. On average, a reviewer volition carry approximately eight reviews per yr, according to a written report on peer review past the Publishing Enquiry Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals will ofttimes have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They volition also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers exercise not go burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY Do REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to behave peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees take to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, and so they should review the work of their peers equally well. Reviewers may likewise have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist equally much every bit possible. Others review to keep up-to-engagement with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists utilise peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read most new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their customs, as sometimes reviewers who bear witness dedication to the journal are later hired every bit editors. Some scientists meet peer review every bit a take a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be outset to develop new insights from the cloth. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on i's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'due south interest in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing tin likewise be an effective manner for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Bang-up TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the clemency Sense About Science at the British Scientific discipline Festival at the University of Surrey, plant that 90% of reviewers were corking to peer review (12). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review upward to 5 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 boilerplate, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), notwithstanding, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. Ane in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Make up one's mind IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (thirteen). Later logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the championship, publisher, and land of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first make up one's mind if the subject 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 exist aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review unremarkably follow a specific construction that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that information technology is articulate and concise. A study by the National Clan of Realtors (NAR) published past the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually approximate whether an article volition be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to practice so (xiv).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the groundwork or purpose, methods, central results, and major conclusions of the written report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consistent with the residual of the newspaper. The NAR report indicated that xl% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract lone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the fourth dimension (14). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is oft used to assess 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 being studied is of involvement to the scientific community, and what gap in noesis the study aims to fill up (xv). 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 enquiry question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section as well includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can exist used it to repeat the experiment (fifteen). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active phonation. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, information technology is the peer reviewer'due south chore to identify what details need to be added.
The results department is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (15). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, likewise equally figures and tables in improver to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient particular, and determines their credibility. 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 (xv). The peer reviewer will besides make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The word section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The word describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future inquiry (15). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the word addresses the limitations of the study, whatever anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the report.
The references are found at the cease 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 concluding name, or numbered according to the guild in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the newspaper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. Subsequently thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the periodical's standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the run a risk of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must as well exist open up to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes fabricated in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is more often than not conducted in one of three means: open up review, single-bullheaded 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's 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, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing likewise discourages plagiarism amid authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review tin can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in club to be polite (two). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more than esteemed author's piece of work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it volition damper their relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense About Scientific discipline survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of piddling value (12). In the same study past the China, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Single-bullheaded peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC written report, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-bullheaded peer review (7). This method is advantageous every bit the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed (2). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author (2). The primary disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, still, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their ain data first (2).
Double-bullheaded peer review is advantageous as information technology prevents the reviewer from being biased against the writer 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 author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the Cathay survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (vii). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, specially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes exist piece of cake for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing mode, subject matter or self-commendation, and thus, impart bias (two).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-bullheaded 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 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). In that location was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (17). Still, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had unlike results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when writer identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (eighteen). Although Justice et al. argued that this divergence was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot exist generalized to journals of a different subject field matter (17). Additionally, at that place were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. ended that masking writer identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, at that place are ii experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may exist subjected to post-publication peer review. Equally many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and postal service a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Primal have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. But 8% of authors surveyed in the Mainland china study had feel with postal service-publication review (7). Some other experimental form of peer review chosen Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such equally 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 commodity and the reviews as the commodity is being adult (xix). Dynamic peer review helps foreclose plagiarism as the scientific customs will already be familiar with the work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in print (xix). Dynamic review likewise reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (xix). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and nevertheless highly utilized. All methods of peer review take their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN Access JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Nevertheless, there tin be issues regarding the peer review procedure of open access journals. In a report published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly unlike versions of a fictional scientific paper (written past a false author, working out of a non-real institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This report was performed in lodge to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed earlier publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this written report were selected from the Directory of Open up Admission Journals (DOAJ) and Biall'due south List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake newspaper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful information on the bug associated with lower quality publishers that do not accept an effective peer review arrangement in place, the commodity also generalizes the report results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. At that place were two limitations of the report that made it impossible to accurately make up one's mind the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control grouping (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized choice of journals, resulting in bias.
Periodical ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% (7). Xx pct of the submitted manuscripts that are not accustomed are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected post-obit review (vii). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organisation
Based on a contempo survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the electric current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific communication is profoundly helped by peer review' (seven). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (seven).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are x tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an practiced on the discipline (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility amongst boyfriend scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If 1 is to await others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of low quality, suggest that information technology be rejected, merely do not exit advertising hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the bulk of journals will provide a link to either accept or decline. Do not answer to the email, respond to the link.
4) Be helpful
Advise how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer'due south perspective.
five) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the function of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions fatigued. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited equally part of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rail who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is tardily on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the periodical and the writer, besides as to not develop a reputation of beingness late for review deadlines.
seven) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic nearly the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may fix the bar also high for the newspaper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Exist sensitive and respectful with give-and-take choice and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will effort to go both specialised and general reviewers for any particular newspaper to let for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful function to play, fifty-fifty if the newspaper is not in their area of expertise.
ten) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical catamenia. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors too as for clarity. Well-nigh publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Brainstorm with an overview of the proposed improvements; and so provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical menstruation of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Club (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author'due south shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides articulate explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer accept time to call up nigh the paper; they should read it once, expect at least a day, then re-read it before writing the review (11). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, equally well as to what edits they find helpful, in society to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing past editing their peers' papers and request a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offering to peer review as oftentimes equally possible in club to go skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do non get formal preparation in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors past offer to review manuscripts (11). The APS besides suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (xi).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If at that place is any section of the manuscript they experience they are non qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and non provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever function of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more than knowledgeable in the discipline matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of i of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague's help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must exist identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the task of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review procedure (23). Once the review is consummate, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically past the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Virtually of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a niggling question (24). Information technology is as well common for authors to suggest that 2 variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the 2 variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do 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 common error is the author's failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices tin can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can exist a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements near specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that tin can be applied to areas of science exterior the scope of the original study, therefore it is ameliorate for reviewers to wait 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 information technology is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully place the problems specific to each paper and continuously enquire themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to acquit peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website nether the Peer Review Resource section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is trivial evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an constructive screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. Equally a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics also argue that peer review is non constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this signal, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted 8 deliberate errors into a paper that was well-nigh ready for publication, and and then sent the newspaper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the newspaper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than 5 errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Some other criticism of peer review is that the procedure is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, considering the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by 3 MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a uncomplicated estimator plan called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen newspaper submitted to a conference was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that 16 SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published past the Usa Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé adult a program to discover SCIgen papers and has made it freely bachelor to ensure publishers and conference organizers exercise not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately 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 About Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) recollect it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would crusade the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing business firm Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this outcome (27).
It has likewise been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting inventiveness amid researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative enquiry ideas and assuming research questions that have the potential to make major advances and image shifts in the field, every bit they believe that this work will likely exist rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, equally some studies may not seem specially strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under unlike circumstances, or in the low-cal of new information (28). Scientists that practice not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
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 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not accept 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 being accustomed equally a result. Information technology is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the newspaper or periodical itself could exist substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish whatsoever high quality inquiry (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed past people who are interested and hold like views or opinions as the author, which tin cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by young man practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as apparent, though other scientists may find the newspaper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a afterwards date and they are later retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted afterward publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (thirty).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is too criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific customs, and as an unpaid-action that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such equally research and didactics, for which they are paid (31). Every bit described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a ways of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one effect (32). All the same, nowadays near journals are bachelor online, either exclusively or in improver to print, and many journals accept very limited press 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 periodical is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (32). Nevertheless, some reviewers accept used this alibi when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their ain research published first.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Kinesthesia of chiliad as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (afterward an initial check to ensure that the newspaper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and and then conducts transparent mail-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new scientific discipline reaching the academic customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). It too aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they tin publish their ain similar work beginning (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial determination letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, non on subjective determinants of 'touch on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing program" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open up peer review, and authors are given the option to mail service the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ as well 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 improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process and then that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into enquiry (35). According to Keith Collier, over xv million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, equally papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious periodical where they are reviewed again (35). Authors frequently have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times earlier they discover the right match. This process could have months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors cull the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time 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 3 expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author's fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are as well screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the virtually appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Study (35). The author tin can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Study attached. The Rubriq Written report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the newspaper 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 fourth dimension and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers besides receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also do good, every bit they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their ain reviewers, which ofttimes end up rejected (35). This tin reduce reviewer fatigue, and let merely 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 direction, 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 cull papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier'south opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more than prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement (35). Mail service-publication peer review volition not serve to identify errors and fraud but volition provide an additional measurement of impact (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, loftier quality, novel and interesting enquiry papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues nowadays in submitted papers. Though the peer review process nonetheless 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 await for ways of addressing the current problems with peer review to ensure that it 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 Process." Trends Biotechnol, twenty(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
iv. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, xi(2): 217-226. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware M. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, four:4-xx. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crunch?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): 3-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Enquiry." Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Admission Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to 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 Care Med, 166(eight): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager Eastward, 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 "Peer-reviewed Journal Articles Are Always Credible to Use in Academic Writing"
Post a Comment