How to Determine if Teaching Was Effective Peer Reviewed
EJIFCC. 2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243.
Published online 2014 Oct 24.
Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide
Jacalyn Kelly
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tara Sadeghieh
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
1Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
threeChair, Communications and Publications Partitioning (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been defined equally a process 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 field of study and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its broad-spread apply by almost 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 procedure. Information technology helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful inquiry questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has get increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific customs. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed manufactures provide a trusted form of scientific advice. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is peculiarly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen confronting plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers accept been looking into electronic ways of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future 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.
Key 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, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two chief purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to better 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 likewise identify any errors that need correcting before publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was adult long earlier the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review procedure is thought to accept been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syrian arab republic, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Doc (2). At that place, he stated that physicians must accept notes describing the state of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized past a local medical council to determine whether the doctor had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council accounted that the advisable standards were not met, the md in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (two).
The invention of the press press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (3). At this time, information technology became more important to regulate the quality of the written cloth that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first 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 Royal Club were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Gild is thought to exist the starting time journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (5), even so, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors determine which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did non serve to ensure the validity of the enquiry (vi). Information technology did non take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Purple Society of Edinburgh adhered to the post-obit peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the discipline matter to those members who are near versed in these matters. The study of their identity is non known to the author." (7). The Majestic 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 form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the big increase in scientific enquiry during this period (7). It is now used not but to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but as well to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal's standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential role 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 organisation because it effectively subjects an author's work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, information technology encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review besides supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or argument is generally not accepted past the bookish community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) simply considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Affect 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 research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to equally pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the newspaper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they volition ship the newspaper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are as well known every bit referees (this process is summarized in Figure one). The office of the editor is to select the about appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review procedure. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must as well ensure that at that place are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review procedure.
Overview of the review procedure
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 ceremoniousness of the methods used. The reviewer besides assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field past 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 exist accustomed, rejected, or improved earlier publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study'south telescopic (9). If the newspaper is accepted, equally per proffer by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized cognition on the content of the manuscript, also as by scientists with a more than general noesis base of operations. Peer reviewers can exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject area areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the immature reviewers are the near responsive and deliver the all-time quality reviews, though this is not e'er the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately 8 reviews per year, co-ordinate to a written report on peer review past the Publishing Research Consortium (Communist china) (seven). Journals volition often have a pool of reviewers with various backgrounds to let for many different perspectives. They will also go along a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?
Referees are typically non paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable attempt, so the question is raised every bit to what incentive referees accept 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, then they should review the piece of work of their peers as well. Reviewers may besides have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist equally much every bit possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective mode to exercise and so. Some scientists apply peer review as an opportunity to accelerate 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 community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review equally a run a risk to get aware of the latest inquiry earlier their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the cloth. 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 involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing tin can as well be an effective fashion 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 charity Sense About Science at the British Scientific discipline Festival at the Academy of Surrey, found that xc% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). Ane third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to v papers per year, and an additional ane third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT Accept TO REVIEW 1 PAPER?
On average, information technology takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), all the same, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the newspaper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the "Sense About Science" survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their terminal paper (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 (xiii). Later on 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 country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is all the same actively publishing. The black volume symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first decide if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will and so consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may exist aided by a literature scan of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The championship 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 it is clear and curtailed. A report by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published past the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could commonly judge whether an article will be of involvement to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to exercise so (14).
The abstruse is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the groundwork or purpose, methods, cardinal results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstruse is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that xl% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract solitary 60-lxxx% of the fourth dimension, while 32% could judge an commodity based on the abstract lxxx-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstruse lonely is frequently used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill (fifteen). The introduction identifies the study's purpose and telescopic, briefly describes the full general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (xv). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background data on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section too includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that information technology tin exist used information technology to repeat the experiment (xv). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active vocalization. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to reply the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If data is missing from the methods department, it is the peer reviewer'south 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 judgement, bias or interpretation (fifteen). 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 detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer will likewise make sure that tabular array and effigy captions are advisable both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The word describes the significant and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for hereafter research (fifteen). The give-and-take should end with a conclusions department 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 interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the give-and-take addresses the limitations of the study, whatsoever anomalies in the results, the human relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.
The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to draw the groundwork, methods, and/or translate results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order co-ordinate to writer last name, or numbered co-ordinate to the order in which they announced in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal'due south standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field (16) to make up one's mind priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the adventure 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 besides be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and acquire from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is by and large conducted in 1 of 3 ways: open up review, unmarried-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the newspaper and the peer reviewer know one another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer'southward identity is kept private, but the author'due south identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and writer are kept bearding. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (2). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism among authors (two). On the other hand, open peer review can likewise prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone downward their criticisms in order to exist polite (two). This is especially truthful when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed writer's piece of work, in which example the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their human relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense Near Science survey, editors notice that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of lilliputian value (12). In the aforementioned report by the Red china, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is past far the nearly common. In the PRC report, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-blind peer review (7). This method is advantageous as 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 main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, nevertheless, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own enquiry may be tempted to filibuster completing the review in lodge to publish their own data first (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as information technology prevents the reviewer from being biased confronting the author based on their state of origin or previous work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense Nigh Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (7). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be like shooting fish in a barrel for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing mode, subject thing or cocky-citation, and thus, impart bias (two).
Masking the writer'south identity from peer reviewers, as is the example 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 author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, specially with well-known authors (17). However, a previous study conducted past McNutt et al. had unlike 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 (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted simply biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter (17). Additionally, at that place were bug masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In addition to open, single-blind and double-bullheaded peer review, at that place are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific customs has the opportunity to comment on these papers, appoint in online discussions and mail a formal review. For instance, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central accept 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. Merely eight% of authors surveyed in the PRC report 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 allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed (xix). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific customs will already be familiar with the piece of work before 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 past Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (19). These alternative forms of peer review are notwithstanding un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and however 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 fashion (20). Nevertheless, there can exist issues regarding the peer review procedure of open access journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written past a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to make up one's mind whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparing to subscription-based journals. The journals in this written report were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall's Listing, a listing of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing (21). Of the 304 journals, 157 accustomed a fake paper, suggesting that credence 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 have an effective peer review arrangement in place, the article likewise generalizes the report results to all OA journals, which tin be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately decide the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: one) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized option of journals, resulting in bias.
JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a contempo survey, the average acceptance charge per unit for papers submitted to scientific journals is nearly l% (7). 20 per centum of the submitted manuscripts that are not accustomed are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (7). Of the l% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accustomed without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM
Based on a recent survey past the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and simply 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (seven). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the argument that 'scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review' (7). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the thought that peer review 'provides control in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW Effectively
The following are ten tips on how to exist an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (22):
1) Exist professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, equally office of the academic community, to take role in peer review. If ane is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put attempt into it.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of depression quality, propose that it exist rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no do good to being ruthless.
three) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals volition provide a link to either accept or turn down. Practise not reply to the electronic mail, respond to the link.
4) Be helpful
Propose how the authors tin overcome the shortcomings in their newspaper. A review should guide the writer on what is good and what needs piece of work from the reviewer'south perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the office of a scientific peer, non an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don't make full a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the brownie of the enquiry conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as role of the review.
6) Exist timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors rails who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, besides as to not develop a reputation of beingness late for review deadlines.
7) Be realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic almost the work presented, the changes they advise and their part. Peer reviewers may set the bar as well high for the paper they are editing past 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 word choice and tone in a review.
9) Exist open up
Think that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will effort to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for unlike perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful part to play, fifty-fifty if the paper is non in their surface area of expertise.
10) Be organised
A review requires structure and logical menstruum. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors equally well as for clarity. About publishers provide brusk guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper construction, the quality of information sources and methods of investigation used, the logical menstruation of argument, and the validity of conclusions fatigued. Then provide feedback on style, vocalism 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'due south and author'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 clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the writer, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is effective. It is suggested that the reviewer accept time to call up about the paper; they should read information technology once, wait at least a day, and and so 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, every bit well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to acquire how to peer review finer (eleven). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process (11). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practise not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. Co-ordinate to the APS, i acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offer to review manuscripts (11). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (xi).
The peer reviewer should simply comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If there is any section of the manuscript they experience they are not 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 any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject thing) without start obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the newspaper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. Information technology is important for scientists to remember that if a newspaper 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 order to ensure that he/she is accordingly credited for any contributions (23). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague profitable is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must exist destroyed and cannot exist saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
Mutual ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to expect out for. Near of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only back up for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is also common for authors to propose that two variables are unlike because the furnishings of one variable are statistically meaning while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the 2 variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practise not command for information technology, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete country of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the writer's failure to define terms or use words with precision, equally these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms tin be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce cognition that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is ameliorate for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, information, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is more often than not better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, simply rather advisedly identify the bug specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if annihilation is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to carry peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It tin can be accessed through the American Physiological Order website under the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that at that place is picayune show that the procedure really works, that information technology is really 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 Clan concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly gear up for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was ii, no reviewer spotted more than than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did non spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences oft accept any 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 reckoner program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen newspaper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen 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 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 bachelor to ensure publishers and briefing organizers do not have nonsense piece of work in the future. Information technology is bachelor at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/principal.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is oft criticized for beingness unable to accurately notice plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically exist included as a component of peer review. As explained past Alice Tuff, development director at Sense About Science, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers call up peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The bookish time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the arrangement to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of periodical editors in 2009 to assist improve this consequence (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality past limiting inventiveness amongst researchers. Proponents of this view merits that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and assuming research questions that accept the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may event in rejection of innovative inquiry, as some studies may not seem especially strong initially, still 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 practise non 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 need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (i.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers bachelor could not have reviewed them all (29). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to clarify the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are existence accepted equally a upshot. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or periodical itself could be substandard (29). On a like annotation, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves as "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish whatever loftier quality enquiry (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold like views or opinions equally the author, which tin can crusade bias in their review. For instance, a newspaper on homeopathy is probable to be reviewed by boyfriend practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the newspaper to exist nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their brownie is challenged at a subsequently date and they are later on retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that take been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (thirty).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activeness that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Managing director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed equally a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in 1 result (32). All the same, nowadays almost journals are bachelor online, either exclusively or in improver to print, and many journals have very express printing runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work tin can and should be published. Consequently, existence selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a periodical is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can utilize to reject a paper (32). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published get-go.
Contempo INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of chiliad as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial bank check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), so conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to preclude delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused past prolonged publication times (32). It besides aims to make peer reviewing more off-white by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work offset (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision 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 but on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'bear on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open up peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before 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 arrangement (35). Rubriq is intended to subtract redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing tin be put back into research (35). According to Keith Collier, over 15 one thousand thousand hours are lost each twelvemonth to redundant peer review, as papers go rejected from one journal and are after submitted to a less prestigious periodical where they are reviewed again (35). Authors oftentimes take to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the correct match. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in society to help authors cull the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time earlier their newspaper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author 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'due south fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed past the 3 experts, the nigh advisable journal for submission is adamant based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The newspaper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author can then submit their newspaper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the newspaper as it shows that 3 experts take recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq as well has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consequent and efficient, which decreases fourth dimension and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals also do good, equally they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected (35). This tin reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to exist sent to their peer reviewers (35).
According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers volition be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific periodical criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers equally a drove (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not every bit a replacement (35). Postal service-publication peer review will not serve to place errors and fraud only volition provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier too believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will exist stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
Final REMARKS
Peer review has go fundamental in profitable editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures simply quality enquiry papers are released into the scientific customs.
REFERENCES
3. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Procedure." Trends Biotechnol, 20(viii): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Thousand. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, xi(two): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
seven. Ware M. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." China Summary Papers, 4:4-20. [Google Scholar]
eight. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(two): 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(one): 3-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Ac., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Author Identity Meliorate Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(3):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xviii. 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 Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Enquiry." Biology and Medicine, 1(4): ane-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open up 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 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 Commodity." Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166(8): 1019-1023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). "Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review." JAMA, 287(21): 2784-2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from EJIFCC are provided hither courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
eilermanantwookes.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "How to Determine if Teaching Was Effective Peer Reviewed"
Postar um comentário