As a General Rule Useful Information(for a Literature Review) Must Have the 3 Attributes Quizlet
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 Ill Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
iClinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
iiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstruse
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author'due south scholarly piece of work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field. Information technology functions to encourage authors to meet the accustomed high standards of their subject area and to command the broadcasting of research information to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use 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. Inside the scientific community, peer review has get an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw authentic conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted course of scientific advice. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is especially important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts every bit a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, at that place has not yet been a foolproof organization developed to take the identify of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review procedure. Unfortunately, the contempo explosion in online merely/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a big number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant run a risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review procedure, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Cardinal words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open admission
WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?
Peer Review is defined equally "a procedure of subjecting an writer'south scholarly work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field" (1). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only loftier quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to meliorate the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and besides identify any 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 piece of work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review process was starting time described past a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Doc (2). At that place, he stated that physicians must have notes describing the state of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following handling, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the medico in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to exist distributed to the full general public (3). At this fourth dimension, it became more than important to regulate the quality of the written fabric that became publicly available, and editing past peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new scientific discipline (3). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Periodical des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Guild were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results (four). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Social club is idea to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (v), even so, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors make up one's mind which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (vi). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and before long thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the inquiry report before publication. The Regal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent past correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author." (seven). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Committee on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (six).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at to the lowest degree partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period (7). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, merely too to determine which papers sufficiently encounter the journal'south standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is at present standard practice past about credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
Affect OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author's piece of 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 also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is mostly not accepted by the academic customs unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed periodical (8). The Found for Scientific Data (ISI) but considers journals that are peer-reviewed every bit candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established procedure 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 written report 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 every bit pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject thing 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 paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a apparent source, they will send the paper to achieved researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1). The role of the editor is to select the nigh 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 there 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 advisedly and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the scientific discipline, the quality of the experimental pattern, and the ceremoniousness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the inquiry, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify whatever scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers requite recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accustomed, rejected, or improved before publication in the periodical. The editor volition mediate author-referee word in guild to analyze the priority of certain referee requests, propose areas that tin exist strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (ix). If the paper is accustomed, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the newspaper goes into the product stage, where information technology is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific periodical. An overview of the review process is presented in Effigy 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted past scientific experts with specialized cognition on the content of the manuscript, every bit well as by scientists with a more full general knowledge base. Peer reviewers tin exist anyone who has competence and expertise in the discipline areas that the periodical covers. Reviewers tin range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Ofttimes, the young reviewers are the virtually responsive and deliver the all-time quality reviews, though this is not ever the case. On average, a reviewer will deport approximately eight reviews per yr, according to a report on peer review past the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) (vii). Journals will often accept a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep 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 not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, 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, then they should review the work of their peers equally well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may desire to assistance as much equally possible. Others review to go on up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do and so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to accelerate their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are nifty on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and condign part of their customs, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists run into peer review as a risk to become enlightened of the latest inquiry before their peers, and thus be starting time to develop new insights from the cloth. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing tin can be desirable every bit it is often noted on one's resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher'due south interest in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (11). Peer reviewing can also exist an effective way for a scientist to evidence their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (five).
ARE REVIEWERS Keen TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the clemency Sense Well-nigh Science at the British Science Festival at the University 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 five papers per twelvemonth, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to 10.
HOW LONG DOES It Have TO REVIEW ONE Paper?
On average, it takes approximately half-dozen hours to review one paper (12), yet, 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 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including 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, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled 'refereed') reveals that the 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 determine if the discipline matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided past a literature browse of review articles.
Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific construction that begins with the title, followed past the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the championship is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and curtailed. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Printing in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a pregnant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could commonly gauge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so (14).
The abstruse is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the groundwork or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstruse is consequent with the balance of the newspaper. The NAR study indicated that forty% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of involvement to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could guess an commodity based on the abstract eighty-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstruse alone is oftentimes 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 club to identify why the question being studied is of involvement to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the report aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the study's purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions (xv). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the enquiry topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are conspicuously identifiable.
The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods department as well includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be 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 answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient particular. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to identify what details need to exist added.
The results department is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (15). This section tin include statistical tests performed on the data, also as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient particular, and determines their brownie. Reviewers too ostend that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (15). The peer reviewer volition besides brand sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the information accurately.
The word section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the pregnant and significance of the results in terms of the enquiry question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This department may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (xv). The give-and-take should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers besides ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and applied applications of the study.
The references are found at the end of the paper, and listing all of the information sources cited in the text to draw the groundwork, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical society according to author last proper noun, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the newspaper. 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 make up one's mind whether it meets the journal's standards for publication,
and whether information technology falls within the meridian 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 society of importance, is presented in Effigy ii.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increase the take a chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines earlier submission. The author must besides be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Different TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is generally conducted in ane of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-bullheaded review. In an open review, both the writer of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another's identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer's identity is kept private, just the writer's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open up peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (two). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without existence disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (ii). On the other hand, open up peer review can also forestall reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite (2). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author'south work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fright that it volition damper their relationship with a superior (two). According to the Sense Virtually Science survey, editors notice that completely open up reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (12). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (vii).
Single-bullheaded peer review is by far the most common. In the Red china study, 85% of authors surveyed had feel with single-bullheaded peer review (7). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more than probable to provide honest feedback when their identity is curtained (2). This allows the reviewer to make contained 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 delay completing the review in order to publish their own data beginning (2).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased confronting the writer based on their country of origin or previous work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a practiced idea (12), and the Cathay survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-bullheaded peer review (vii). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, peculiarly in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be piece of cake for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject area matter or cocky-commendation, and thus, impart bias (two).
Masking the writer'south identity from peer reviewers, as is the instance in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review (17). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and writer 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, especially with well-known authors (17). All the same, a previous written report conducted by McNutt et al. had dissimilar results (18). In this instance, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when writer identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (xviii). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was as well minor to be consequential, their report targeted merely biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different bailiwick matter (17). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. ended that masking author identity from reviewers may non ameliorate review quality (17).
In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, post-obit publication, papers may be subjected to mail-publication peer review. Every bit many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, appoint in online discussions and mail a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central accept enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (ten). Philica is another periodical launched with this experimental grade of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review (seven). Another experimental class of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has too emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to carry peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (19). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous procedure, which allows the public to see 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 exist familiar with the piece of work earlier the peer reviewed version appears in print (19). Dynamic review also reduces the fourth dimension 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 (19). These alternative forms of peer review are nonetheless united nations-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to mistake.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN Admission JOURNALS
Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly pop as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely fashion (twenty). Yet, there can exist problems regarding the peer review process of open up admission journals. In a study published in Scientific discipline in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a simulated author, working out of a non-existent establishment) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparing to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall's List, a 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 financial involvement rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful data on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that practice not have an effective peer review organisation in place, the commodity also generalizes the study 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 determine the relationship betwixt peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control grouping (subscription-based journals), and ii) the faux papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is most l% (vii). Twenty pct of the submitted manuscripts that are not accustomed are rejected prior to review, and thirty% are rejected following review (7). Of the l% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while merely nine% are accepted without the request for revision (7).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW System
Based on a contempo survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and simply 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (7). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the argument that 'scientific communication is profoundly helped by peer review' (seven). At that place was a similarly high level of back up (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides command in scientific communication' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW Effectively
The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an skilful on the subject (22):
ane) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibleness among boyfriend scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the bookish community, to take part in peer review. If one is to look 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 paper is of low quality, propose that information technology exist rejected, just do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to acquit a peer review, the majority of journals volition provide a link to either have or turn down. Do non respond to the email, reply to the link.
four) Be helpful
Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their newspaper. A review should guide the author on what is proficient and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
5) Exist scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or controlling. Don't fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific cognition and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the newspaper has a lot of typographical errors, propose that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.
6) Be timely
Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors runway who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is belatedly on completing a review. It is of import to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, every bit well as to non develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
seven) Exist realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic virtually the work presented, the changes they advise and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar besides high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with give-and-take pick and tone in a review.
9) Be open
Remember that both specialists and generalists tin can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to become both specialised and general reviewers for whatever particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their surface area of expertise.
10) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors likewise equally for clarity. Near publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; and so provide feedback on the newspaper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical period of argument, and the validity of conclusions fatigued. Then provide feedback on style, phonation and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Order (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and author's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect (eleven). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that information technology provides clear explanations to support recommendations. To exist helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and so re-read it earlier writing the review (11). The APS as well suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to acquire how to peer review finer (11). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. Information technology is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often every bit possible in society to become skilled at the process (xi). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practise not go formal preparation in peer review, merely rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, 1 acquires feel through networking and referrals, and should therefore effort to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts (11). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide effective feedback to students and inferior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (11).
The peer reviewer should simply annotate on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (23). If at that place is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any office of the manuscript with a colleague (fifty-fifty if they may be more 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 endeavor and gain insight. It is of import for scientists to remember that if a paper can exist improved by the expertise of i of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague's assistance, and approval 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 whatsoever contributions (23). It is the task 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 be saved electronically past the reviewers (23).
COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. About of these errors are violations of logic and mutual sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when in that location is just support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is too common for authors to suggest that 2 variables are different considering the effects of 1 variable are statistically meaning while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than direct comparing the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practise not command for it, or forget to include of import details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied (24). Another common mistake is the author'southward failure to ascertain terms or use words with precision, as these practices tin can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements most specific citations are besides a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can exist practical to areas of science outside the telescopic 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 important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, merely rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Club website nether the Peer Review Resources department.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is footling bear witness that the procedure actually works, that it is actually an constructive screen for adept quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, 'Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain' (25). Critics too argue that peer review is not constructive at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted 8 deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly set for publication, and and so 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 two, no reviewer spotted more than 5 errors, and 35 reviewers (sixteen%) did non spot any.
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 oftentimes have whatsoever newspaper sent in, regardless of its brownie or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they have, the more money they can make from writer registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a uncomplicated estimator program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accustomed. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that 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 US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made information technology freely bachelor to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense piece of work in the hereafter. 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. Yet, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. Equally explained past Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Scientific discipline, 'The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) merely merely a minority (38%) call back it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt' (27). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help meliorate this issue (27).
Information technology has besides been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amid researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that accept the potential to make major advances and epitome shifts in the field, as they believe that this piece of work volition likely be rejected by their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may non seem specially strong initially, still may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the lite of new data (28). Scientists that exercise non believe in peer review fence 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 at that place are a express number of people that are competent to deport peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (ane.3 1000000 papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), simply 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 research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted every bit a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to exist peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in culling 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 concur similar views or opinions as the author, which tin can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by boyfriend practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to exist accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the newspaper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, merely their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Lookout man is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (30).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for beingness a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' time abroad from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and educational activity, for which they are paid (31). As 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 one issue (32). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs (32). Since in that location are no longer page limits to journals, any practiced work can and should exist published. Consequently, existence selective for the purpose of saving infinite in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can utilise to refuse a paper (32). Nonetheless, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such every bit getting their ain inquiry published offset.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access periodical that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has non been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent mail-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic customs that are caused by prolonged publication times (32). It also aims to brand peer reviewing more fair by eliminating whatsoever anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they tin publish their own like piece of work beginning (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial determination letters (32).
PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 equally an open admission, peer reviewed scholarly periodical for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of 'bear on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). It works on a "lifetime publishing programme" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ 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 likewise offers a pre-print review service chosen 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 system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing tin can be put back into enquiry (35). Co-ordinate to Keith Collier, over xv million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from i periodical and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed once again (35). Authors oft have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are frequently rejected multiple times before they find the right friction match. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in guild to help authors cull the periodical that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published (35). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three adept bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The majority of the author'due south fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (35). The papers are besides screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (35). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper (35). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author tin then submit their paper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Written report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper equally it shows that three experts have recommended the newspaper to them (35). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and near significantly, they are compensated for their fourth dimension (35). Journals as well benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which oftentimes end upwards rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be 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 will be posted online, and a mail-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality (32). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a drove (32). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's opinion, postal service-publication peer review is likely to go more prevalent every bit a complement to pre-publication peer review, but non as a replacement (35). Mail service-publication peer review volition non serve to identify errors and fraud merely will provide an boosted 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 fundamental in assisting 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 await for means of addressing the current problems with peer review to ensure that information technology is a full-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(8): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini One thousand. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Blood Transfus, 11(2): 217-226. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vii. Ware Grand. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." PRC Summary Papers, 4:iv-20. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(2): 135-141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP. (2012). "Demystifying Peer Review.", 39(1): 3-vii. [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]
18. 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]
19. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Procedure: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research." Biology and Medicine, 1(4): 1-xvi. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals." Open up Medicine, one(1): 49-51. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who'south 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 Care Med, 166(viii): 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]
Manufactures from EJIFCC are provided here courtesy of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "As a General Rule Useful Information(for a Literature Review) Must Have the 3 Attributes Quizlet"
Enviar um comentário