Why Are Peer-reviewed Journals Considered the Gold Standard for Research Projects
J Adv Pract Oncol. 2012 Mar-April; 3(2): 117–122.
Published online 2012 Mar 1.
Peer Review: Publication's Golden Standard
The broadcasting of valuable and novel scientific information provides the pulse for biomedical publishing. Scientific journals catalog the contributions, thoughts, and opinions of researchers, investigators, and experts in the field. Authors consider the reputation and quality of a journal prior to submitting a manuscript for consideration. Information technology is reasonable to think that readers likewise consider journal prestige as a factor in journal choice. The prestige of a periodical depends on the validity, usefulness, and quality of the articles published. This commodity will define and examine the peer-review process equally well as explore the roles and responsibilities of the peer reviewer.
The Peer-Review Process
Aside from its use in scientific journals, peer review is the process past which grants are allocated, academics are promoted, textbooks are written, and Nobel prizes are won (Smith, 2006). A publication that has been peer reviewed gains respectability and acceptance and is considered a relevant contribution to the field. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is an important criterion for admissibility of scientific testify in courts of law (Kumar, 2009). The basis of the peer-review process is the acceptance of written investigational findings from an writer or group of authors that are so forwarded to a group of experts (referees) in the field for assessment of their quality, accurateness, relevance, and novelty (Shuttleworth, 2009). Traditionally, these experts are not paid for their opinions and are not part of an editorial staff.
The goal of peer review is to make up one's mind if an article should or should not exist published and to improve the commodity earlier publication (Neale & Bowman, 2006). It is a process that entails filtering out manuscripts that are misleading, irrelevant, inaccurate, or that comprise potentially harmful content (Kumar, 2009). In one case the peer-review process is complete (run across Effigy 1), the editor of a journal bears responsibility for its content and may choose to agree or disagree with the opinions of the reviewers (Garmel, 2010).
Effigy 1. Central steps in the peer-review procedure.
Limitations
Despite its credence equally a critical role of quality command, peer review is non a perfect process. In 2003, The Cochrane Collaboration published a review last that in that location is lilliputian evidence to support the use of editorial peer review every bit a machinery to ensure quality of biomedical enquiry, despite its widespread use and costs (Jefferson, Rudin, Brodney Folse, & Davidoff, 2007). There are few published, randomized controlled studies relating to peer review; therefore it remains sick-defined.
The peer-review process tin be time consuming, costly, bailiwick to reviewer bias, and inept at identifying fraudulent manuscripts. A well-known example of the failure of peer review is the publication of two fraudulent papers by Hwang Woo-Suk concerning stalk prison cell research in the journal Science (Kumar, 2009).
In addition, in that location are no agreed-upon evidence-based guidelines as to what constitutes a qualified reviewer. A report examining the relationship of previous preparation and feel of periodical peer reviewers to subsequent review quality determined that no identifiable types of formal training or feel predicted reviewer performance. The authors suggest that journals implement routine review rating systems to periodically monitor the quality of their reviews (Callaham & Tercier, 2007).
Traditionally, the peer-review process has been conducted anonymously, with author and reviewer identities masked during the review process. Although this may protect reviewers from writer demands and retaliation, reviewer anonymity is being debated and is under increasing scrutiny (Garmel, 2010; Leek, Taub, & Pineda, 2011). Early evidence supporting blind peer review (McNutt, Evans, Fletcher, & Fletcher, 1990) was later challenged by studies suggesting that such a practice made no editorially significant difference to review quality, publication recommendation, or time taken to review, but did increase the probability of reviewers declining to review (van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Smith, & Blackness, 1998; Justice, Cho, Winker, Berlin, & Rennie, 1998; van Rooyen, Godlee, Evans, Black & Smith, 1999). It is possible that an open process may increase cooperation betwixt reviewers and authors and lead to a decreased chance of reviewing errors (Leek, Taub, & Pineda, 2011).
Some journals have already considered transition to open up peer review. In 1999, the British Medical Journal adopted an open up (signed) review system that remains in place today. Most recently, the journal has examined the effect of notifying reviewers that their signed reviews might exist posted on the web. Their decision was that alerting peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the journal's website had no important upshot on review quality only was associated with a high refusal rate (van Rooyen, Delamothe, & Evans, 2010). Other journals such every bit Nature and The Public Library of Science are revising old review criteria, creating open up admission, and examining public review (Editors of The New Atlantis, 2011).
One report examined the effects of adding a statistical peer reviewer and using a checklist of manuscript quality. The study showed a positive effect when a statistical reviewer was added to the field-proficient peers, but no statistically significant positive result was suggested by the utilise of reporting guidelines (Cobo et al., 2007). Boosted alternative methods of peer review such equally open peer review without suppression of publication, postpublication review, a hybrid organization (traditional with postpublication review), author-suggested peer review, author model of peer review, and peer review consortia have been discussed and explored in the literature (Kumar, 2009).
Reviewer Responsibilities
However sick-defined information technology may be, the peer-review procedure is nevertheless the golden standard that will continue to drive scholarly publication. Understandably, a large role of the responsibility for the success or failure of the peer-review process depends upon peer reviewers. A peer reviewer should be both a scholar and a scientist with complex analytical skills, which allows for the critical assay of information in the interest of improved outcomes (Bearinger, 2006).
Peer review tin can exist time consuming and laborious; therefore, accepting the responsibleness of peer review requires commitment on the role of the reviewer. Information technology should be viewed every bit a professional responsibleness, not to exist taken lightly, given that the end result determines what is relevant, in impress, to a specific body of knowledge. Just as editors and journals respect their reviewers, ofttimes acknowledging their contributions publically, reviewers should respect the editor and the journal by producing a quality of work that is consequent with the journal's reputation and integrity.
Simply as a surgeon would set up for surgery, a reviewer must prepare for a review. First, it is important to sympathise a selected journal's mission and review criteria equally they will be incorporated into manuscript review. One time an invitation to review is accepted, reviewers normally concur to consummate the assigned manuscript review within a specified time frame. This is not simply of import to journals and editors who accept publication deadlines, but to authors who eagerly await news of credence or rejection. Fourth dimension is specially important in cases where the author is asked to consider recommended revisions prior to a concluding determination of acceptance or rejection. 2nd, reviewers must maintain confidentiality; using any data gained for self-interest or extracurricular professional person discussion is unethical.
Given that a reviewer'southward authority to recommend a manuscript's credence or rejection carries weight with an editor's final publication decision, careful consideration of the manuscript and each individual section is required prior to whatever such recommendation. A fair assay requires a reviewer to have undisturbed focus, a discerning centre for detail, and cognition of appropriate exclusive content (see Tabular array 1). It is important to consider if the information is accurate, understandable, valid, useful, and transparent. Grammar is important, and errors can be pointed out; all the same, the chief concern for the reviewer is relevancy of manuscript content.
Table 1. Sectional Content for Manuscript Review
Table 2 provides a list of of import questions to consider when reviewing a manuscript. A helpful resource to guide review is the CONSORT Statement. Updated in 2010, it provides guidance for reporting all randomized controlled trials (CONSORT, 2010). An additional resource is the EQUATOR Network (2012), an international initiative that seeks to amend the reliability and value of medical research literature past promoting transparent and authentic reporting of research studies.
Table 2. Of import Questions to Consider When Reviewing a Manuscript
All reviewers are subject to bias. Gender, patriotism, and linguistic preference have been shown to bear on peer review (Kumar, 2009). Reviewers are more likely to favor manuscripts that are clearly written, are creative, demonstrate positive results, and accept interesting titles, meanwhile rejecting manuscripts with negative results, multiple errors, and seasoned data (Garmel, 2010). It is possible that senior reviewers may reject their juniors; manuscripts from more prestigious institutions may be more readily accepted than those from lesser-known institutions (Kumar, 2009). Reviewers are responsible for disclosing biases that may hinder an impartial and counterbalanced review. Lack of expertise in an area may not hinder review as useful comments may still be collected, simply in this circumstance, the editor should be informed that a lack of expertise exists (Garmel, 2010).
Once the review is complete, reviewers offer scholarly input with the intent to improve the manuscript. Feedback should be constructive and the critique professional and positive. When a reviewer provides feedback that enables authors to revise and resubmit a publishable paper, the peer-review process is working as intended (Bearinger, 2006). Length of the review is not as of import as detailed suggestions for improvement. The review should brainstorm with a recommendation for rejection, acceptance with minor revisions, or acceptance with major revisions. The reviewer should comment on the manuscript as a whole, then provide input on each private department. Suggestions should be clear and provide management. Comments should be detailed enough to assistance authors with revisions but non and then detailed that the manuscript is rewritten (Garmel, 2010). Reviewers should remember to annotate on the appropriateness of the abstract and exist certain it mirrors the content of the manuscript.
Reviewing provides an opportunity for learning and gaining exposure to cut-edge research (Bearinger, 2006). Reviewing is a skill that requires critical thinking; information technology will improve with time, practice, personal research, and writing. A adept reviewer is competent, knowledgeable, unbiased, objective, punctual, consistent, ethically audio, constructive, and maintains confidentiality (Garmel, 2010; Kumar, 2009).
Feedback
Reviewers, similar authors, can benefit from feedback; they should welcome input from editors and experienced colleagues. Feedback is important for both new and seasoned reviewers. Editors at a specialty journal in the top 11% of the Found of Scientific Information's bibliographic database (ranked by number of citations) performed a 14-twelvemonth longitudinal study designed to evaluate change in the review quality of private peer reviewers. The study found that over time virtually periodical peer reviewers received lower quality scores for commodity assessment. Proposed reasons were cognitive changes, competing priorities, or escalating expectations (Callaham & McCulloch, 2011). Although it is not mutual exercise, results such as these advise that ongoing self-evaluation past the reviewer and validated reviewer evaluation on the office of the editor are important factors for ensuring quality peer review.
Reviewing is a professional privilege, and reviewers are advised to recollect they are representing a journal and have responsibilities to authors (see Tabular array 3), editors (see Table 4), and readers (encounter Tabular array 5). Perhaps most importantly, reviewers are answerable to the medical community and the scientific body of cognition impacted by their reviews.
Table three. Reviewers' Responsibilities to Authors
Table 4. Reviewers' Responsibilities to Editors
Table 5. Reviewers' Responsibilities to Readers
Conclusion
While it is not a perfect process, traditional peer review remains the gold standard for evaluating and selecting quality scientific publications. Boosted enquiry and the evolution of evidenced-based guidelines are needed to govern this process, which is expected to evolve in the hereafter. Peer review is both an art and a science largely dependent on the quality of its review body. Competent peer reviewers are experts in their field answerable to authors, editors, readers, and the medical community. Peer reviewers human activity every bit advocates, or referees, for authors and enable editors to brand quality publication decisions. Peer review is a professional privilege and responsibility that direct impacts what is accepted as of import to a trunk of noesis. Although the peer-review process can be time consuming and underappreciated, rewards such every bit mentorship, learning, exposure to cut-border research, and personal development brand it a worthwhile investment.
Footnotes
The author has no relevant conflicts to disembalm.
References
1. American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Clan. 2010 [Google Scholar]
2. Bearinger 50. H. Beyond objective and balanced: Writing constructive manuscript reviews. Research in Nursing & Health. 2006;29:71–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Callaham Thousand. L., Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and feel of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. Public Library of Science Medicine. 2007;iv(i):e40. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
four. Callaham M., McCulloch C. Longitudinal trends in the performance of scientific peer reviewers. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2011;57:141–148. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Cobo East., Selva-O'Callagham A., Ribera J. M., Cardellach F., Dominguez R., Vilardell Thou. Statistical reviewers better reporting in biomedical manufactures: A randomized trial. Public Library of Scientific discipline Medicine. 2007;2(3):e332. Retrieved from world wide web.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17389922. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
six. CONSORT. The Consort statement. 2010 Retrieved from http://world wide web.espoused-statement.org/consort-statement/ [Google Scholar]
7. Editors of The New Atlantis (2006). Rethinking peer review. The New Atlantis. 2006;13:106–110. Retrieved from http://world wide web.thenewatlantis.com/publications/rethinking-peer-review. [Google Scholar]
8. EQUATOR Network. Resources for editors and peer reviewers. 2012 Retrieved from http://world wide web.equator-network.org/resources-center/editors-and-peer-reviewers/editors-and-peer-reviewers/ [Google Scholar]
nine. Garmel 1000. M. Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals. The Permanente Journal. 2010;14(1):32–forty. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S., Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2007;18(2) [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xi. Justice A. C., Cho Grand. K., Winker Thousand. A., Berlin J. A., Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER investigators. Periodical of the American Medical Association. 1998;280(3):240–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Kumar G. A review of the review process: Manuscript peer-review in biomedical research. Biology and Medicine. 2009;1(iv):i–16. [Google Scholar]
13. Leek J. T., Taub Thou. A., Pineda F. J. Cooperation betwixt referees and authors increases peer review accurateness. Public Library of Science Medicine. 2011;vi(11):e26895. Retrieved from www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.002695. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. McNutt R. A., Evans A. T., Fletcher R. H., Fletcher S. Due west. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1990;263(10):1371–1376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Neale A. Five., Bowman 1000. A. Peer review procedure of the Periodical of the American Lath of Family Medicine. The Journal of the American Board of Family unit Medicine. 2006;19(2):209–210. [Google Scholar]
16. Shuttleworth M. Peer review procedure. Experiment-Resources.Com. 2009 Retrieved from http://www.experiment-resources.com/peer-review-procedure.html. [Google Scholar]
17. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed procedure at the center of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;99(4):178–182. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. van Rooyen Southward., Delamothe T., Evans S. J. Consequence on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might exist posted on the spider web: Randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 2010;341:c5729. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. van Rooyen Due south., Godlee F., Evans S., Black Due north., Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomized trial. British Medical Journal. 1999;318(7175):23–27. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R., Black North. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Clan. 1998;280(3):234–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology are provided here courtesy of Harborside Press
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093306/