Hasnt Published Any Medical Research in a Peer Reviewed Journal
EJIFCC. 2014 October; 25(three): 227–243.
Published online 2014 October 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, Academy of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Khosrow Adeli
aneClinical Biochemistry, Section of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
iiSection of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemical science (IFCC), Milan, Italy
Abstract
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, inquiry or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the aforementioned field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted loftier standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of enquiry data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior adept review. Despite its wide-spread utilize by near journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the procedure to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful inquiry questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of depression quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts equally a filter to preclude this work from reaching the scientific customs. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. 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 against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, at that place has not withal been a foolproof system developed to have the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic ways of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a big number of scientific articles with petty or no peer review. This poses meaning risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, 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 equally "a process of subjecting an author'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 simply 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 amend 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 too identify any errors that need correcting earlier publication.
HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW
The concept of peer review was developed long earlier the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used equally a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece (2). The peer review procedure was first described past a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his volume Ethics of the Doc (ii). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the land of their patients' medical conditions upon each visit. Following handling, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to make up one's mind whether the doctor had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient (2).
The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (3). At this time, it became more of import to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the beginning universal method for generating and assessing new science (iii). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method (3). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English language Philosophical Transactions of the Imperial Gild were the start scientific journals to systematically publish inquiry results (4). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (v), all the same, it is of import to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research (6). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and before long thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the enquiry study earlier publication. The Majestic Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: "Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the field of study matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is non known to the author." (seven). The Royal Lodge of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the "Commission on Papers" to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (6).
Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has adult immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increment in scientific research during this menstruation (seven). It is now used not just to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but besides to make up one's mind which papers sufficiently meet the journal'south standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.
Bear on OF THE PEER REVIEW Process
Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it finer subjects an writer'southward work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, information technology encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will accelerate the field. Peer review likewise supports and maintains integrity and actuality in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is by and large not accepted by the academic community unless information technology has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (8). The Establish for Scientific Information (ISI) but considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established procedure which has been a formal function 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 as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that information technology fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the newspaper 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 as well known as referees (this procedure is summarized in Figure 1). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely way. They must also ensure that at that place are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.
Overview of the review procedure
When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advocacy in the field past evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the enquiry. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved earlier publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in society to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, propose areas that tin can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study's scope (nine). If the paper is accustomed, as per proposition by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production phase, where information technology is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review procedure is presented in Effigy 1.
WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?
Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, likewise every bit by scientists with a more than full general cognition base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from immature and upward-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the immature reviewers are the well-nigh responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is non always the instance. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a report on peer review by the Publishing Inquiry Consortium (PRC) (7). Journals volition often have a puddle of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many unlike perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not go 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 every bit to what incentive referees take to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to help as much equally possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review equally an opportunity to advance their ain inquiry as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are groovy on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, every bit sometimes reviewers who prove dedication to the journal are later hired equally editors. Some scientists see peer review every bit a run a risk to become aware of the latest research earlier their peers, and thus be start to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable every bit information technology is ofttimes noted on one'south resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher's involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (eleven). Peer reviewing tin likewise be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field (5).
ARE REVIEWERS Peachy TO REVIEW?
A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the clemency Sense Nigh Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that xc% of reviewers were keen to peer review (12). One tertiary of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an boosted ane 3rd of respondents were happy to review upward to ten.
HOW LONG DOES IT Accept TO REVIEW 1 PAPER?
On average, information technology takes approximately six hours to review one paper (12), however, 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 accept taken more than than 100 hours to review their last paper (12).
HOW TO Make up one's mind IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED
Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including data regarding which journals are peer reviewed (13). After logging into the organisation using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, periodical titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and state of origin of the periodical, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The blackness 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 bailiwick matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is of import and original, a process which may be 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 title must exist descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the written report. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive plenty, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A written report by the National Clan of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the championship of a manuscript plays a significant function in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could normally judge whether an article volition be of interest to them based on the championship and the writer, while 13% of respondents claimed to always exist able to practise and so (14).
The abstract is a summary of the newspaper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of involvement to them based on the abstract solitary 60-80% of the fourth dimension, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract lxxx-100% of the time (14). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.
The introduction of a scientific newspaper presents the research question in the context of what is already known well-nigh the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific customs, and what gap in knowledge the report aims to fill (15). The introduction identifies the study'south 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 groundwork information 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 also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it tin be used it to repeat the experiment (xv). Methods are written in the past tense and in the agile vocalisation. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer's job to place what details demand 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 (15). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, besides as figures and tables in improver to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient item, 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 (fifteen). The peer reviewer will as well make sure that tabular array and effigy captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures nowadays the data accurately.
The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (15). The discussion describes the significant and significance of the results in terms of the enquiry question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (15). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the word is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an advisable estimation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the give-and-take addresses the limitations of the study, whatsoever anomalies in the results, the relationship of the written report to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the report.
The references are found at the stop of the paper, and listing all of the data sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to writer last proper noun, or numbered co-ordinate to the guild in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.
Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal'southward standards for publication,
and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field (16) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Effigy 2.
How a peer review evaluates a manuscript
To increment the take chances of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the newspaper fully complies with the periodical guidelines before submission. The author must also exist open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE Dissimilar TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
The peer review process is mostly conducted in 1 of three means: open review, single-bullheaded review, or double-blind review. In an open up review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know 1 another's identity. Alternatively, in unmarried-blind review, the reviewer'south identity is kept individual, but the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-bullheaded review, the identities of both the reviewer and writer are kept anonymous. Open up peer review is advantageous in that information technology prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, existence careless, or procrastinating completion of the review (two). It encourages reviewers to exist open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing too discourages plagiarism amongst authors (2). On the other paw, open up peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fearfulness of developing bad rapport with the writer. The reviewer may withhold or tone downwardly 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 instance the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that information technology will damper their relationship with a superior (2). According to the Sense Near Scientific discipline survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of lilliputian value (12). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, merely 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review (7).
Single-blind peer review is by far the most mutual. In the Prc study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-bullheaded 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 (ii). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their ain research may be tempted to filibuster completing the review in order to publish their own information first (two).
Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous piece of work (2). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Scientific discipline survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (12), and the Communist china survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review (vii). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of enquiry, information technology tin can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to decide the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias (two).
Masking the author'southward identity from peer reviewers, as is the instance 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). 1 hundred and xviii manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the 'intervention' arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts (17). In that location was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was ofttimes unsuccessful, specially with well-known authors (17). Nevertheless, a previous report conducted by McNutt et al. had unlike results (18). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they plant that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (18). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too minor to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot exist generalized to journals of a different subject field matter (17). Additionally, at that place were bug masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking writer identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (17).
In addition to open up, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there 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 annotate on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For case, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site (10). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Just eight% of authors surveyed in the Prc study had experience with mail-publication review (7). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has besides emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which permit scientists to carry peer reviews on articles in the preprint media (xix). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous procedure, which allows the public to encounter both the article and the reviews equally the commodity is being developed (xix). Dynamic peer review helps forbid plagiarism as the scientific community will already exist familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (19). Dynamic review too reduces the fourth dimension lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An case of a preprint server is the 'arXiv' developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (nineteen). These alternative forms of peer review are all the same un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and notwithstanding highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are decumbent to error.
PEER REVIEW OF OPEN Admission JOURNALS
Open up admission (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular every bit they permit the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (xx). Nevertheless, there tin 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 by a imitation writer, working out of a non-real 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 credence was based on fiscal interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (21). Although this study highlights useful data on the bug associated with lower quality publishers that exercise non accept an effective peer review system in identify, the article as well generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which tin be detrimental to the full general perception of OA journals. At that place were ii limitations of the study that fabricated information technology incommunicable to accurately determine the human relationship between peer review and OA journals: i) there was no control grouping (subscription-based journals), and two) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized pick of journals, resulting in bias.
Journal ACCEPTANCE RATES
Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance charge per unit for papers submitted to scientific journals is about l% (7). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (vii). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accustomed with the status of revision, while only 9% are accustomed without the request for revision (vii).
SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW Organisation
Based on a contempo survey by the People's republic of china, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be 'dissatisfied' (seven). The large bulk, 85%, agreed with the statement that 'scientific advice is greatly helped by peer review' (7). There was a similarly loftier level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review 'provides control in scientific advice' (7).
HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY
The following are ten tips on how to exist an effective peer reviewer equally indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject field (22):
1) Be professional
Peer review is a mutual responsibility among swain scientists, and scientists are expected, as function of the academic community, to accept office in peer review. If i is to await others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others besides, and put endeavour into information technology.
2) Be pleasant
If the paper is of depression quality, suggest that it exist rejected, but exercise non leave ad hominem comments. In that location is no benefit to being ruthless.
3) Read the invite
When emailing a scientist to ask them to behave a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the e-mail, reply to the link.
4) Be helpful
Advise how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer's perspective.
5) Be scientific
The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or controlling. Don't fill up a review with comments on editorial and typographic problems. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper 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 rails who is reviewing what and when and volition know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the writer, besides every bit to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.
vii) Exist realistic
The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their office. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are also ambitious and editors must override them.
8) Be empathetic
Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice 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 get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular newspaper to permit for dissimilar perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, fifty-fifty if the newspaper is not in their area of expertise.
10) Exist organised
A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review earlier submitting information technology for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well equally for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Brainstorm with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, vocalisation and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.
In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor's and writer's shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and await (11). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to dorsum upwardly recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer have time to think nigh the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review (eleven). The APS besides suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attending to how peer reviewers edit their work, besides as to what edits they find helpful, in club to acquire how to peer review effectively (eleven). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students do reviewing by editing their peers' papers and asking a kinesthesia member for feedback on their efforts. Information technology is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as oftentimes as possible in club to become skilled at the procedure (eleven). The majority of students, fellows and trainees practice non get formal training in peer review, only rather larn by observing their mentors. Co-ordinate to the APS, 1 acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try 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 junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science (xi).
The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable nigh (23). If there is any section of the manuscript they experience they are non qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide farther feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share whatever part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the bailiwick matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor (23). If a peer reviewer comes beyond something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper tin be improved past the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague'southward help, 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 gild to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions (23). It is the task of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is enlightened of the confidentiality of the peer review process (23). One time the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot exist saved electronically by the reviewers (23).
Common ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
When performing a peer review, at that place are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and mutual sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is just support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question (24). It is also mutual for authors to propose that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than direct comparison the two variables (24). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and practise not control for it, or forget to include of import details on how their experiments were controlled or the concrete land of the organisms studied (24). Another common fault is the author's failure to define terms or apply words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers (24). Jargon and/or misused terms can exist a serious trouble in papers. Inaccurate statements most specific citations are as well a common occurrence (24). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can exist applied to areas of scientific discipline outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is meliorate for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand (24). Although it is of import to recognize these points, when performing a review information technology is by and large better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could exist wrong, but rather carefully identify the bug specific to each paper and continuously inquire themselves if anything is missing (24). An extremely detailed clarification of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic 1000. Hoppin, Jr. Information technology tin exist accessed through the American Physiological Lodge website under the Peer Review Resources section.
CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW
A major criticism of peer review is that there is fiddling show that the procedure really works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that information technology actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 written report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ended, '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 bespeak, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly fix for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the newspaper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than v errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Another criticism of peer review is that the procedure is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences oft accept whatever paper sent in, regardless of its brownie or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they have, the more money they can make from author registration fees (26). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 past three MIT graduate students past the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer 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 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 by the U.s.a. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé adult a programme to detect SCIgen papers and has fabricated it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense piece of work in the future. Information technology is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php (26).
Additionally, peer review is often criticized for existence unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included every bit a component of peer review. Every bit explained by Alice Tuff, evolution manager at Sense About Science, 'The vast bulk of authors and reviewers recall peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but simply a minority (38%) recollect 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 assistance of periodical editors in 2009 to aid meliorate this outcome (27).
It has also been argued that peer review has lowered inquiry quality past limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view merits that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and assuming research questions that have the potential to brand major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, equally they believe that this work will probable be rejected past their peers upon review (28). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may non seem specially strong initially, yet may exist capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new data (28). Scientists that do not 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 upshot 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 (ane.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), only 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 newspaper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are existence accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure periodical that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard (29). On a like note, the United states of america National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all place themselves equally "peer-reviewed", they rarely publish any loftier quality research (29). This highlights the fact that peer review of more than controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions equally the writer, which can cause bias in their review. For example, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by swain practicing homeopaths, and thus is probable to be accepted every bit credible, though other scientists may find the newspaper to be nonsense (29). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are later on retracted. Retraction Lookout is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (xxx).
Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is besides criticized for existence a delay to the broadcasting of new knowledge into the scientific customs, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists' time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and instruction, for which they are paid (31). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally adult as a ways of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could impress in one event (32). Nevertheless, present about journals are available online, either exclusively or in improver to print, and many journals have very express press runs (32). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any adept work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a periodical is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (32). Withal, some reviewers have used this alibi when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own inquiry published offset.
Recent INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW
F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (later on an initial bank check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review (32). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic customs that are acquired by prolonged publication times (32). Information technology also aims to brand peer reviewing more than fair past eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own like work commencement (32). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial conclusion letters (32).
PeerJ was founded past Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 every bit an open up admission, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (33). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, non on subjective determinants of 'bear on', 'novelty' or 'interest' (34). Information technology works on a "lifetime publishing plan" model which charges scientists for publishing plans that requite them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (34). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to mail the full peer review history of their submission with their published commodity (34). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (34).
Rubriq is an contained peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (35). Rubriq is intended to decrease back-up in the peer review process then that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into inquiry (35). Co-ordinate to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers become rejected from i periodical and are after submitted to a less prestigious periodical where they are reviewed again (35). Authors frequently take to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times earlier they discover the right match. This process could take months or even years (35). Rubriq makes peer review portable in lodge to assist authors cull the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the kickoff, thus reducing the time earlier 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 iii expert bookish reviewers using a standardized scorecard (35). The bulk of the writer's 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 three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the newspaper (35). The paper is returned to the author in ane-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report (35). The author tin then submit their paper to the suggested periodical with the Rubriq Report fastened. The Rubriq Report will requite the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them (35). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consequent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and virtually significantly, they are compensated for their time (35). Journals as well benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their ain reviewers, which ofttimes finish upwards rejected (35). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow simply 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 post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving newspaper quality (32). Journals will then cull papers that they detect relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers every bit a drove (32). In this process, peer review and private journals are uncoupled (32). In Keith Collier's stance, mail-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent equally a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement (35). Mail service-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but volition provide an additional measurement of impact (35). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, in that location will be stronger potential for "cascading" and shared peer review (35).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Peer review has become central in assisting editors in selecting credible, loftier quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of whatsoever errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review procedure notwithstanding has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has non however been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must go along to wait for means of addressing the electric current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof organisation that ensures just quality research papers are released into the scientific community.
REFERENCES
iii. Spier R. (2002). "The History of the Peer-review Process." Trends Biotechnol, xx(viii): 357-358. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini Chiliad. (2012). "How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon." Claret Transfus, 11(2): 217-226. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ware Chiliad. (2008). "Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives." Prc Summary Papers, 4:4-twenty. [Google Scholar]
8. Mulligan A. (2005). "Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Oral On-col. 41(ii): 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(one): 3-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Justice Air-conditioning., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D. (1998)."Does Masking Writer Identity Improve Peer Review Quality?" JAMA, 280(three):240-242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990). "The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review." JAMA, 263(10):1371-1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Kumar M. (2009). "A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Enquiry." Biology and Medicine, i(4): ane-16. [Google Scholar]
20. Falagas ME. (2007). "Peer Review in Open Admission Scientific Journals." Open Medicine, i(1): 49-51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Bohannon J. (2013). "Who's Agape of Peer Review?" Science, 342(6154):threescore-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
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
0 Response to "Hasnt Published Any Medical Research in a Peer Reviewed Journal"
Post a Comment