What Does the Department of Social Services Do Peer Reviewed Articles
EJIFCC. 2014 October; 25(iii): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Infirmary for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Ill Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
iiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an writer's scholarly piece of work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to command the broadcasting of enquiry information to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread utilize past most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. Information technology helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals respond meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to preclude this work from reaching the scientific community. The major reward of a peer review procedure is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted grade of scientific communication. Since scientific noesis 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, at that place has non notwithstanding been a foolproof system adult to accept the place of peer review, however, researchers accept been looking into electronic means 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 manufactures with little or no peer review. This poses significant hazard to advances in scientific knowledge and its time to come potential. The electric current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with unlike types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Central words: peer review, manuscript, publication, periodical, open admission
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined as "a process of subjecting an author's scholarly piece of work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (ane). Peer review is intended to serve ii chief purposes. Firstly, information technology acts as a filter to ensure that simply high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the written report. Secondly, peer review is intended to ameliorate the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to better the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify whatever 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 process is thought to accept been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review procedure was beginning described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syrian arab republic, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ideals of the Md (ii). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the land of their patients' medical weather condition 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 printing printing in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (3). At this fourth dimension, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written textile that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what somewhen became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science (three). His piece of work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (iii). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English language Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Order were the start scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Lodge is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), notwithstanding, information technology is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (6). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the inquiry written report earlier publication. The Purple Lodge of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent past correspondence are distributed co-ordinate to the subject field matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (7). The Royal 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 World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific inquiry during this period (7). It is now used non only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the periodical'due south standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most apparent scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication organization because information technology effectively subjects an writer's work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that volition advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is by and large not accepted by the academic customs unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Establish for Scientific Information (ISI) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The peer review procedure begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist and so submits this paper to a suitable periodical that specializes in a relevant enquiry field, a step referred to equally pre-submission. The editors of the journal volition review the paper to ensure that the subject area affair is in line with that of the journal, and that information technology fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the newspaper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the newspaper to achieved researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known every bit 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 process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that in that location are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review process
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer besides assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the piece of work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should exist accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor volition mediate writer-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of sure referee requests, propose areas that tin be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (9). If the paper is accustomed, every bit per suggestion by 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 one.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, likewise as past scientists with a more general knowledge base of operations. Peer reviewers tin can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and upwards-and-coming researchers to onetime masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and evangelize the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will deport approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with various backgrounds to permit for many different perspectives. They will likewise keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers practise not become burnt out, overwhelmed or fourth dimension constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the procedure takes considerable endeavour, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, and then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may likewise have personal contacts with editors, and may want to aid every bit much every bit possible. Others review to keep up-to-appointment with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an constructive way to do and so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to accelerate their own research as information technology stimulates new ideas and allows them to read near new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are bang-up on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign office of their community, every bit sometimes reviewers who bear witness dedication to the journal are later hired equally editors. Some scientists encounter peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be starting time to develop new insights from the textile. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can exist desirable as it is often noted on one's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's interest in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also exist an effective mode for a scientist to bear witness their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Keen TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the clemency Sense Almost Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were peachy to peer review (12). One third 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 ten.
HOW LONG DOES Information technology TAKE TO REVIEW ONE Newspaper?
On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), notwithstanding, this number may vary profoundly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense Virtually Science" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their terminal newspaper (12).
HOW TO DETERMINE 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 (13). After logging into the organization using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers tin be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and land of origin of the periodical, and indicates whether the journal is even so actively publishing. The blackness volume symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she volition first decide if the discipline matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer volition then consider whether the research question is important and original, a procedure which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review unremarkably follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, 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 study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A report by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a pregnant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could normally judge whether an article will be of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to e'er exist able to practice so (fourteen).
The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the report. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstruse is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the residue of the paper. The NAR report indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of involvement to them based on the abstract lonely 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract fourscore-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract solitary is oftentimes 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 guild to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the written report aims to make full (15). The introduction identifies the study's purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (15). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background data on the research topic, and ensures that the inquiry question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should exist detailed plenty that it can exist used it to repeat the experiment (15). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to reply the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to place 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 section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient particular, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are of import and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will also brand certain that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Hither, the results are interpreted and related to by studies (15). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for hereafter research (15). The word should finish with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the word is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an advisable interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the report.
The references are found at the finish of the paper, and 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 terminal name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether information technology meets the journal'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 gild of importance, is presented in Figure 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increment the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines earlier submission. The writer must also exist open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three means: open up review, unmarried-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another'south identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer'due south 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 writer are kept anonymous. Open up peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, existence careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open up and honest without existence disrespectful. Open up reviewing as well discourages plagiarism amidst authors (2). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fearfulness of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to exist polite (ii). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more than esteemed writer's work, in which case the reviewer may exist hesitant to provide criticism for fearfulness that it will damper their relationship with a superior (ii). Co-ordinate to the Sense Nearly Science survey, editors observe that completely open up reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of piffling value (12). In the same written report by the Communist china, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open up peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is past far the most common. In the Prc written report, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with unmarried-blind peer review (vii). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more than 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 (ii). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may exist tempted to filibuster completing the review in order to publish their own data starting time (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their land of origin or previous piece of work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-bullheaded peer review is a good idea (12), and the Red china survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (seven). The disadvantage of double-bullheaded peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes exist piece of cake for the reviewer to determine the identity of the writer based on writing style, subject area matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (ii).
Masking the author's identity from peer reviewers, equally is the case in double-blind review, is generally idea 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). I 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 writer quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived difference in quality betwixt the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, peculiarly with well-known authors (17). However, a previous report conducted past McNutt et al. had different results (18). In this instance, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (eighteen). Although Justice et al. argued that this departure was too minor to exist consequential, their written report targeted simply biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a dissimilar subject matter (17). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking writer identity from reviewers may non improve review quality (17).
In addition to open up, unmarried-blind and double-blind peer review, at that place are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may exist 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 mail service a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central 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. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the China study had experience with post-publication review (7). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such every bit Naboj, which permit scientists to behave 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 come across both the article and the reviews every bit the article is being developed (19). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in impress (nineteen). Dynamic review too reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An instance of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' adult by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (nineteen). These alternative forms of peer review are nevertheless united nations-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and however highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN Access JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (20). Even so, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open admission journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly dissimilar versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a imitation writer, working out of a non-existent establishment) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in lodge 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 Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall's List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on fiscal involvement rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful information on the issues associated with lower quality publishers that do non have an effective peer review organization in place, the commodity besides generalizes the report results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the written report that made it impossible to accurately make up one's mind the human relationship between peer review and OA journals: i) there was no command group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized option of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal Credence RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average credence rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is virtually fifty% (7). 20 percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accustomed are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (seven). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the status of revision, while just 9% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Arrangement
Based on a contempo survey by the Communist china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the 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 greatly helped by peer review' (7). In that location was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the thought that peer review 'provides command in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are x tips on how to exist an effective peer reviewer every bit indicated past Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
ane) Be professional person
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, every bit function of the academic customs, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.
2) Exist pleasant
If the newspaper is of depression quality, suggest that information technology be rejected, simply do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to existence ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Practice not respond to the email, respond to the link.
4) Exist helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is expert and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
five) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the part 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 noesis and commenting on the credibility of the enquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, propose that it exist professionally proof edited as part of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is of import to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, likewise as to non develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they propose and their role. Peer reviewers may prepare the bar also loftier for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
eight) Be compassionate
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word pick and tone in a review.
9) Be open up
Remember that both specialists and generalists tin can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will 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 determined they have a valid and useful function to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review earlier submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well equally for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. So provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author'south shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and look (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 author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. Information technology is suggested that the reviewer have time to think well-nigh the newspaper; they should read it once, wait at to the lowest degree a day, and then re-read it before writing the review (eleven). The APS as well suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their piece of work, as well as to what edits they discover helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (11). Additionally, information technology 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 often equally possible in order to go skilled at the procedure (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn past observing their mentors. According to the APS, i acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore endeavor to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (11). The APS likewise 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 scientific discipline (11).
The peer reviewer should but annotate on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable nigh (23). If there is whatsoever section of the manuscript they experience they are non qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is non permitted to share whatever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more than knowledgeable in the subject field thing) without outset 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 proceeds insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague's help, and blessing must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in gild to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, at that place are some common scientific errors to expect out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and mutual sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is simply support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is as well common for authors to propose that two variables are different because the furnishings of ane variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practise not command for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the author's failure to ascertain terms or use words with precision, equally these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms tin can exist a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are too a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can exist practical 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 hand (24). Although it is of import to recognize these points, when performing a review it is by and large better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could exist incorrect, but rather carefully place the problems specific to each newspaper and continuously enquire themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed clarification of how to conduct peer review finer is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can exist accessed through the American Physiological Gild website under the Peer Review Resource section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is little bear witness that the process actually works, that it is really an constructive screen for skillful quality scientific piece of work, and that it really improves the quality of scientific literature. Equally a 2002 report 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 debate that peer review is not constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Periodical (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nigh ready for publication, and so sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the boilerplate number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did non spot whatsoever.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is non conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences ofttimes accept whatsoever newspaper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 past three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple estimator program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them equally scientific papers (26). Later, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that xvi SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the High german academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated past SCIgen were published by the US Establish of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers practice not have 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 existence unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically exist included equally a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development director at Sense Virtually Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic fourth dimension involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the organization to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the assistance of journal editors in 2009 to help better this effect (27).
It has besides been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting creativity amidst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative inquiry ideas and bold enquiry questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work volition likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative inquiry, equally some studies may not seem peculiarly stiff initially, however may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information (28). Scientists that exercise non believe in peer review contend that the process stifles the evolution of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.
Some other outcome that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that demand reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.iii one thousand thousand papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a enquiry paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are beingness accustomed as a issue. It is at present possible to publish any newspaper in an obscure periodical that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or periodical itself could be substandard (29). On a like note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify 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 hold similar views or opinions equally the author, which tin cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is probable to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may detect the paper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, merely their brownie is challenged at a after date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that take been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activeness that takes scientists' time abroad from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). Every bit described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally adult as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in i upshot (32). Even so, present nearly journals are available online, either exclusively or in add-on to print, and many journals accept very limited printing runs (32). Since in that location are no longer page limits to journals, whatever skillful work can and should be published. Consequently, beingness selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can utilize to turn down a newspaper (32). Yet, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such every bit getting their own research published first.
RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in Jan 2013 by Kinesthesia of m as an open up admission journal that immediately publishes papers (subsequently an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to forestall delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). It likewise aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review then they can publish their own similar work first (32). F1000Research offers completely open 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 equally an open admission, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'impact', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). Information technology 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 option to postal service the full peer review history of their submission with their published commodity (34). PeerJ too offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which newspaper drafts are reviewed before existence sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review arrangement (35). Rubriq is intended to subtract redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing tin can be put dorsum into research (35). Co-ordinate to Keith Collier, over xv one thousand thousand hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers become rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (35). Authors often accept to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times earlier they find the right match. This process could have months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in club to assist authors choose the journal that is all-time suited for their manuscript from the outset, thus reducing the fourth dimension before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-bullheaded peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The bulk of the author'south fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the 3 experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The paper is returned to the writer in 1-ii weeks with the Rubriq Written report (35). The author tin can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report fastened. The Rubriq Study 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 consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals as well benefit, every bit they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their ain reviewers, which frequently end up rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow but higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers (35).
Co-ordinate to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new management, in which all papers volition be posted online, and a post-publication peer review volition have place that is independent of specific periodical criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will so choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's stance, post-publication peer review is probable to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but non every bit a replacement (35). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
Concluding REMARKS
Peer review has get cardinal in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of whatsoever errors or issues nowadays in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to await for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that information technology is a total-proof organisation that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, 20(eight): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
iv. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Thousand. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(ii): 217-226. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Ware One thousand. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." Red china Summary Papers, 4:four-twenty. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ix. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): 3-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Writer Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xviii. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(x):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
nineteen. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biological science and Medicine, 1(4): 1-16. [Google Scholar]
xx. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open up Access Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, 1(1): 49-51. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):60-65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014). "The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals." The Physiologist, 57(2): 88-91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). "How I Review an Original Scientific Article." Am J Respir Crit Intendance 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 hither courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
leworthyyouslorou.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "What Does the Department of Social Services Do Peer Reviewed Articles"
Post a Comment