Why Is Peer Review Important Nursing Journal Article

• Journal List
• Nurs Open
• v.3(4); 2016 Oct
• PMC5050543

Nurs Open. 2016 Oct; 3(4): 193–202.

Peer review and the publication process

Parveen Azam Ali

^aneThe School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sheffield, Hairdresser House Annexe, 3a Clarkehouse Route, Sheffield, S10 2LA, UK

Roger Watson

²Faculty of Wellness and Social Care, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, Uk

Received 2015 Aug thirteen; Accepted 2016 February 29.

Abstruse

Aims

To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, pick of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals.

Methods

This newspaper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and feel of contributing equally peer reviewers and editors in the field of wellness care, including nursing.

Results

In that location are various types of peer review: unmarried bullheaded; double blind; open; and post‐publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and bookish customs remains important.

Keywords: Double blind peer review, manuscript, peer review, peer reviewer, publication process, unmarried blind peer review

Introduction

Publication in bookish journals plays an important role in the development and progress of any profession, including nursing (Dipboye 2006). On the one hand, it provides professionals such every bit nurses with an opportunity to share their examples of best practise and research results with colleagues in the subject. On the other hand, academic and scientific publications serve as a source of noesis and evidence for students, novice practitioners and emerging researchers (Henly & Dougherty 2009) and contribute to their professional development. To serve these purposes effectively, advisable scrutiny of manuscripts submitted to bookish journals, to determine their worth, quality, methodological rigour, utility and publishability before appearing in the electronic and print media, is warranted. Such quality balls mechanisms are essential to ensure publication of reliable and high quality research and scholarly bear witness (Shattell et al. 2010).

The publication process begins with a manuscript submission to a journal past an author. As shown in Figure1 – which outlines the editorial processes at Wiley – a manuscript goes through several stages before actual publication (Jefferson et al. 2007). The procedure outlined in Figureone may be more elaborate than for some journals and the various tasks may be distributed differently across the editorial team, only this figure includes all of the possible steps that tin have place in the publication procedure. The first stage of the process is an editorial review that aims to assess the quality and merits of a manuscript. The editor (oftentimes the editor‐in‐chief) of the journal concerned reviews the manuscript to make up one's mind its relevance to the periodical and suitability to undergo peer review. Further checks take identify at the editorial desk-bound past an editorial banana, including checks for similarity to other sources using a similarity detection package such equally iThenticate^®. If the manuscript is too similar to other sources, it may be rejected or it may be unsubmitted and returned to the author for subpoena. Additional checks for readability and the extent to which the manuscript conforms to the standards of the journal, for case, word‐length and utilise of international reporting standards take identify. In Figure1, this is done past a managing editor and, once again, the manuscript may be rejected or returned to the writer for amendment. Once satisfied, the managing editor assigns an editor, identifies, and assigns two‐three reviewers with appropriate cognition, skills, methodological expertise and feel to assess the manuscript and feedback on its quality, rigour and publishability. Peer reviewers' feedback helps the editor to decide if the manuscript is rejected, accepted or needs revision before information technology can exist accustomed for publication. Any the instance, the conclusion is communicated to the author. When a revision is required, the reviewers suggest changes or inquire for more details from the authors before accepting the manuscript for publication. In one case the manuscript is accepted, it moves to the third phase, which is called production and ensures the production of a readable and comprehensible article free of spelling mistakes, and presented in the uniform style of a particular journal (Jefferson et al. 2007). The author is as well expected to check and corroborate the terminal proof earlier the final stage which is an authoritative process, to ensure the allotment of appropriate tracking number, called Digital Object Identifier (DOI), to the article and regular production of a journal (Jefferson et al. 2007). The peer review procedure is important to understand, not merely for potential authors, but too for those involved in the process, equally information technology is often an private/lonely exercise.

The editorial process, including peer review. EiC, editor‐in‐primary; EA, editorial assistant (SPi is a visitor providing editorial assistants); ME, managing editor.

Until recently, little guidance was bachelor to peer reviewers, though, publishers and journals have started developing resource for novice and potential peer reviewers (Pierson 2011). The availability of relatively express information well-nigh the peer review process deters authors' and reviewers' ability and willingness to be involved in the process. An awareness of the peer review procedure may help authors understand the procedure, and expectations better and therefore, may alleviate their anxiety and facilitate preparation of appropriate quality manuscripts. Experienced authors will be well enlightened that not every manuscript is accepted and that some journals take very depression publication rates. For example, the Journal of Advanced Nursing (one of the present authors is an editor) receives approximately 1,400 manuscripts annually and publishes fewer than xx% of them. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) receives over 5000 manuscripts annually and publishes fewer than v% of them (Personal communication from Howard Bauchner, Editor in‐Chief JAMA). Such knowledge may also help authors and readers to become involved in the peer review procedure. This article aims to provide an overview of the peer review procedure for authors, novice peer reviewers and those who may have an involvement in becoming a peer reviewer. Diverse types of peer review, selection of peer reviewers, the function of peer review, and issues associated with peer review are explored.

Background to peer review

Peer review lies at the core of science and academic life (Kearney & Freda 2005, Henly & Dougherty 2009). It is an established component of the publication procedure, professional practise and the academic reward system (Lee et al. 2013). The process involves checking or evaluating the scholarly piece of work by a group of experts in the same discipline. The process is used past academic institutions, funding bodies and publishers to identify strengths, weaknesses and the potential to exist published of a proposed piece of work (Pierson 2011). Information technology is an essential element of the publication process that purports to ensure quality and excellence in papers published in scientific, educational and professional person journals (Henly & Dougherty 2009). The history of editorial review extends over 200 years (Kronick 1990, Rennie 2003); still, the practise of peer review in its electric current grade only developed in the 19th century (Fyfe 2015) and since 1967 peer review has become the norm. It is now considered a golden standard process that not only helps journals to judge manuscripts, simply besides acts as a criterion to judge the journals (Bordage & Caelleigh 2001). Earlier the introduction of peer review, the bulk of editors of academic and scientific journals were generalists. After World War II, medical and technological advancement and changes made it impossible for generalist editors to gauge papers requiring specialist knowledge. Therefore, it was considered necessary to seek the aid of practiced content specialists to assist in the procedure of reviewing (Christenbery 2011). Since then peer review has get an integral part of the publication procedure.

Utility of peer review

In that location are many beneficiaries of the peer review process and these include authors, editors and publishers, peer reviewers, disciplines and society. The process provides authors with an opportunity to better the quality and clarity of their manuscript. Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is considered prestigious. Comments provided by the reviewers guide and help the periodical's editor and editorial staff to place adequate or substandard manuscripts (Christenbery 2011). Editors rely on the peer review organisation to inform the choices they make among the many manuscripts competing for the few places available for publication (Broome et al. 2010, Lipworth et al. 2011).

The peer review process is also useful for peer reviewers themselves, as it helps them develop cognition and expertise in their specific field. Acting as a peer reviewer may also be recognized as an instance of 'contribution to the profession' in individual functioning reviews (Pierson 2011). 'The peer review process can also affect society at large when a social policy implication is suggested or inferred from the published manuscript' (Hojat et al. 2003, p. 76). In improver, publication of well written, methodologically sound and well informed research and scholarly papers help professions such every bit nursing to develop.

Types of peer review

There are, essentially, two types of peer review: closed and open up. The former is more common, but the latter is becoming more than popular and authors and reviewers run into both types of reviews. Closed review has two variants – every bit will be explained – and we are at present seeing mail service‐publication review (PPPR) in some journals. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages equally specified in Table1.

Table 1

Characteristics of diverse peer review methods

	Characteristics	Advantages	Disadvantages
Closed peer review
Unmarried bullheaded	Reviewers aware of authors identity and affiliation Authors unaware of reviewers identity and affiliation	Reviewer anonymity is ensured, therefore they tin give honest feedback No chance of intimidation from authors	Reviewers may give harsh comments or give negative feedback The reviewer may delay feedback to delay the publication of manuscript in example they are interested in publishing on the same topic
Double bullheaded	Neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other identity or affiliation	Reviewer anonymity is ensured, therefore they tin give honest feedback No risk of intimidation from authors The manuscript is judged on its quality and content rather than author	Reviewers may requite harsh comments or give negative feedback Reviewers may still be able to identify the writer in specialist areas
Open up peer review
Open	Authors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity and amalgamation	Reviewers are more than tactful and constructive while giving feedback Reviewers are more rigorous as their name appears in the published article.	May make the reviewer fearful leading to a less honest and less critical review Reviewers can exist intimidated or threatened
Post‐Publication Peer Review (PPPR)
Primary PPR	A manuscript is published afterwards initial editorial checks. Invited reviewers are invited to review the article. Authors can revise their manuscript and revisions are published When commodity passes peer review, it in indexed in databases such as Pub Med, Scopus etc.	A wider group of people is able to annotate on the newspaper Transparent Reviewers tin can exist more rigorous, tactful and constructive every bit their name is published aslope article	People can be unnecessarily harsh or negative People may comment on how the written report should have been washed rather than looking at the strengths and limitations of the approach used
Secondary PPPR	A manuscript is published afterwards initial editorial checks. Reviewers volunteer to review Various publishers require various criteria. for example, some require reviewers to take at to the lowest degree 5 publications of their own; other requires reviewers to be registered on databases Authors tin can revise their manuscript and revisions are published When article passes peer review, it in indexed in databases such as Pub Med, Scopus etc.	A wider grouping of people is able to comment on the paper Transparent Reviewers can exist more rigorous, tactful and effective as their name is published alongside commodity	People can be unnecessarily harsh or negative People may comment on how the written report should have been washed rather than looking at the strengths and limitations of the approach used
Other form of PPPR	People annotate on already published articles through blogs, twitter and using other social media	A wider grouping of people is able to annotate on the paper Transparent Reviewers can exist more rigorous, tactful and effective as their proper name is published alongside article	In experienced reviewers and those with lack of subject knowledge tin can post irrelevant and unhelpful comments

Closed peer review

Closed peer review is a system where either the identities of at to the lowest degree i of the parties in the review process – usually the reviewers – are not disclosed. Closed review works in 2 ways: single blind and double bullheaded. In single blind review, the author is not aware of the reviewers' identities. Even so, the reviewers are enlightened of the authors' identities, affiliations and credentials. It is the most common arroyo used in the bulk of academic and scientific journals, specially biomedical journals (Kearney & Freda 2005). The method is criticized for several flaws such as the possibility of reviewer bias as the reviewer is not blinded to the details of the authors. The method could be considered unfair on the grounds that the manuscript is the intellectual property of the author (Dividoff & DeAngelis 2001) and, therefore, should exist reviewed openly and not secretly (Smith 1999). Some believe that the single bullheaded review gives the reviewers an opportunity to exist harsh to the authors every bit they feel bodacious that the authors will not be able to identify them. In improver, reviewers working in the same field may delay the feedback to filibuster publication, if they themselves are thinking of publishing on the aforementioned topic. Despite this criticism, single bullheaded peer review remains a commonly used method.

Double blind review is also commonly used by many professional person biomedical journals (Kearney & Freda 2005, Baggs et al. 2008). Nearly all (95%) nursing journals follow this approach (Kearney & Freda 2005). In this arroyo, the authors and reviewers are not aware of each other's identities and institutional affiliations. Proponents of double‐blind review maintain that this approach eliminates chances of bias in the manuscript review process; whereas, opponents believe that such blinding does not improve the quality of the review (van Rooyen et al. 1998, Shea et al. 2001). Evidence advise that, despite double blinding, reviewers may nevertheless be able recognize authors through other markers such equally writing style, subject area matter and self‐citation. Like the unmarried blind review, there is a chance that the reviewers may be unnecessarily critical while giving feedback to the authors.

Open peer review

In contrast to the airtight review, open peer review is a system where authors and reviewer are known to each other throughout the process. Many major journals such as the British Medical Journal (BMJ) encourage this approach. In an open up review, authors and reviewers' names may be published alongside each other with an option to publish reviewers' reports alongside. Proponents believe that this is a amend approach as zip is done in secret and the authors' intellectual holding rights are respected (Dividoff & DeAngelis 2001). The arroyo may also act as a regulatory mechanism for the reviewers whom 'will produce meliorate work and avoid offhand, devil-may-care or rude comments when their identity is known' (Ware 2008, p. half dozen). Reviewers are recognized for their contribution every bit their names are published in the periodical. Opponents, all the same, maintain that open review may lead to less honest, less disquisitional and less rigorous review by the reviewers who may fearfulness revenge. Opponents believe that knowing the authors' identity, reputation and institutional affiliation may touch on the review process and contribute to a biased decision. We also consider it possible that some reviewers may be overly critical with the intention of appearing to exist very rigorous to their peers. Open reviewing recently received some criticism following an incident involving the open access online journal PloS Ane (Bernstein 2015). The case involved some sexist remarks from a reviewer towards an author advising her to work with male colleagues who were, ostensibly, more successful. This was made possible by dint of the fact that the reviewer could identify the author and her gender due to the open review system. The reviewer and the editor who allowed the comments to be passed on to the author are no longer associated with the journal.

Other forms of peer review

Hunter (2012, p. 1) states 'Peer review is broken' and she continues to explicate that, from the author's perspective: 'Peer review is dull; it delays publication. Information technology's near ever surreptitious; authors do not know who is reviewing their work – perhaps an ally but, equally, peradventure a competitor'. Still, more recently, advances in the electronic publishing technology (Ware 2008) have enabled the evolution of some other course of review called 'post‐publication peer review' (PPPR), which means that the review is performed once the article is already published. Initially, PPPR was but generally acceptable as a supplement to the peer review process and not as a sole process (Ware 2008) but is condign more mainstream and, for example, the web log The Hereafter of Scientific Publishing (https://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/open-post-publication-peer-review/; accessed 8 December 2015) advocates more post‐publication reviewing as a class of scrutiny of papers which are in the public domain and, moreover, advocates and open system of review. By some this has been seen as a response to the: 'urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the outset line of quality control, the peer review' (Teixeira da Silva & Dobránski 2015, p.1). PPPR can take ii forms 'chief PPPR' or 'secondary PPPR'. In master PPR, an unreviewed article is published after initial editorial checks. Information technology can then exist reviewed by formally invited reviewers, as practiced by F1000Research and Copernicus journals (Amsen 2014) who describe their process as 'publish then filter' (Hunter 2012). In secondary PPPR, the aricle is published afterward initial editorial checks but it is bachelor for review past voluntary reviewers. In both cases, the article is altered by the authors on the footing of the PPPR comments and, essentially, evolves towards a published peer reviewed article. Thus, PPPR – of whatever form – complements traditional peer review and 'allows for the continuous comeback and strengthening of the quality of science publishing' (Teixeira da Silva & Dobránski 2015, p.1) and at present has some prominent supporters, including Richard Smith (2015), the former Editor of the BMJ.

In terms of accelerating the peer review procedure, regardless of the outcome, Kriegeskorte (2012) indicates that the PPPR arrangement essentially merges the 'review and reception', or publication, of articles. He envisages the literature being accessed by web‐portals which have readers straight to articles based on subject area fabric rather than through journals or journal webpages, admittedly something that is already evident, and thus facilitating the process of review and the reputation of individual articles rather than journals. Kriegeskorte (2012) sees this as an culling to potentially skilful manufactures being rejected on submission and besides the rapid, and possibly undeserved, reputation that some articles gain. In Kriegeskorte'due south words (p. seven) 'important papers volition accrue a solid prepare of evaluations and bubble up in the procedure – some of them apace, others after years'. Naturally, some 'quality control' of reviewers is exercised as some publishers require peer reviewers to meet sure criteria. For instance, Science Open requires a reviewer to have at least five articles published in their ORCiD profile. Notwithstanding, at Winnower, any registered user tin can review a published article and leave their comment (Amsen 2014). Alternatively, commenting on published articles via blogs or other third political party sites is always possible.

An informal system of PPPR has e'er existed and this has been facilitated past the recent major advances in electronic publishing and by the nigh universality of journals being published online. The rise of online social media and networking is now facilitating, in turn, a steady stream of annotate on publications. Authors increasingly 'get their retaliation in commencement' by eking out results and manuscripts through social media platforms such equally blogs and microblogs – virtually specifically, Twitter – whereby an exchange of views tin have place in advance, even, of a refereed article. In addition, some journals publish open access; some exclusively and some offering the facility to publish manufactures open admission for a fee called an APC (article processing accuse). Even if the content is not freely available, academics accept easy access to virtually scientific publications through their university libraries via gateways such equally ATHENS. This ways that, with the use of online early publication, by many publishers, of manufactures before they are serialized and with the immediate posting of articles past some online open access publishers such as BioMed Central, that academics have admission to a steady stream of manufactures in their field. Where scientific literature may not be equally freely available, for case, in some developing countries and to those working exterior bookish publishers do take steps to increase ease of access to their piece of work through specific deals and, of class, it is e'er open up to any bookish to asking an offprint (hard copy or electronic) directly from authors.

Finally, and very recently, is the appearance of the website PubPeer which explicitly exists to provide bearding mail service‐publication review of published, refereed, articles. As explained by Watson (2016), PubPeer is in its infancy, but growing and has received some negative press as in the clarification of promoting 'vigilante scientific discipline'.

Selection of peer reviewers

Reviewers are usually people who have published on the same topic (Brazeau et al. 2008) and option of the reviewer is an of import task that is normally carried out by the editor of the periodical. Editors identify and invite suitable, experienced and interested people in the subject area thing or relevant field by using the fundamental words authors (peer review) have used in the by. Many journals use a bank of established and regular reviewers, only some use the keywords to identify individuals via search engines and databases, for case, ResearcherID. Some journals inquire the authors to proper name reviewers and ane study (Kowalczuk et al. 2015) suggest that, while this has trivial effect on the quality of reviews, it does lead to college recommendations to accept manuscripts. Yet, the process of authors suggesting reviewers has led to some scandals related to fabricated peer reviews (Barbash 2015, Moylan 2015) and some journals are no longer using this process. In some journals, authors can also indicate individuals they would non wish to review their manuscripts. The editors may also invite authors to become subsequent reviewers, sometimes by asking them to provide their Curriculum vitae (Evans et al. 1993) or on the basis of item qualifications (e.1000. a PhD) and a publication track record in peer reviewed journals. The method of selecting the reviewer does not, necessarily, touch on the quality of the review as individuals are dissimilar and, therefore, their estimation, views and methods of review volition, in whatsoever case, vary. Withal, contrary to what might exist expected, information technology has been demonstrated that emerging academics are usually better reviewers as they provide comprehensive and thorough feedback (Evans et al. 1993, van Rooyen et al. 1998). Bear witness also identified no improvement in the quality of review with academic seniority or gender (Gilbert et al. 1994, Fox et al. 2016).

Role of peer reviewers

Reviewers contribute to the development of the cognition base of whatever profession, such as nursing, by giving their valuable time to review manuscripts (Dipboye 2006, Pierson 2011). Reviewers are volunteers and rarely receive whatever budgetary compensation for their office (Relman & Angell 1989). The role of a reviewer is very important, nevertheless a challenging and complex professional activity. To be a good reviewer requires theoretical, methodological and practical knowledge and an ability to apply that cognition when evaluating a manuscript and writing constructive feedback to help the writer improve the quality of their manuscript (Lovejoy et al. 2011). In addition, reviewers' feedback helps the editor to brand a decision nearly the manuscript (Broome et al. 2010). Interim as a peer reviewer is useful for an private academic, as it helps them to develop their subject noesis, analytical abilities and skills required to provide constructive feedback. The activity is usually recorded on their curriculum vitae and thus can be recognized in performance appraisal and progression. There are various reasons why reviewers choose to review manuscripts. These include a desire to play their part as a member of the academic community, improve their reputation and career progression (Ware 2008) and increase their knowledge and understanding of their subject. Other common factors that may encourage academics to act equally peer reviewer include the inducement of getting a free or reduced subscription to the journal, acknowledgement in journals and payment in kind (Ware 2008). The reviewers have to adhere to certain principles of the review as advocated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (2013) and bookish journals. These are summarized in Table2.

Table 2

Principles of Peer Review recommended by Commission on Publication Ideals (2013)

Principles

Merely agree to review manuscripts that they have subject expertise in Review manuscript in a timely fashion Respect confidentiality of the review process Practice not apply information obtained during peer review process for own or anyone else advantage or disadvantage Declare conflict of interest, if whatsoever Practise non allow author'southward characteristics (age, gender, and nationality, religious or political beliefs) influence review Provide constructive and objective feedback near the manuscript under review

Bug with peer review

Every bit already indicated, the peer review process is criticized by many academics who believe '…information technology is ineffective, largely a lottery, anti‐innovatory, irksome, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant' (Smith 2015). Some believe that various flaws and bug in the peer review process may bear on the quality of reviews and, thereby, the quality of publications. These flaws include: slowness of the publication processes; negative affect on authors; poor training and training of reviewers; variable review requirements; ineffectiveness of peer review; and biases in peer review. We believe, these issues are relevant to all forms of peer review, although, some may be more relevant to some forms of peer review than others.

Peer review slows the publication procedure

In that location is a perception that peer review may tiresome the procedure of publication. '…the original purpose of peer review was to ration access to resources for scholarly exposure. Nowadays, however, exposure is not a deficient resource, since publications tin can be fabricated available electronically, essentially free of cost. The question, therefore, is one of quality control and we exercise not know how much refereeing the scholarly market actually wants' (The British Academy 2007, p. 11). Nevertheless, peer review is a quality command machinery which, despite contributing to slowness of procedures, enhances the quality of the publication. In add-on, virtually journals – these days – not simply specify a date when a review is due, merely likewise send reminders (a week earlier the review is due; on the due appointment) to reviewers to remind them to complete and submit their review timely. This approach is very useful as it helps reviewers to complete their review in fourth dimension.

Negative impact on authors

Undergoing peer review can be a negative feel for some authors due to insensitive and irresponsible behaviour of some reviewers who may not read the manuscript, provide irrelevant comments or feedback, and use the opportunity to promote their work or make negative and malicious comments (Smith 2015). Nonetheless, evolution and advice of appropriate practice guidelines and principles of peer review may help overcome such problems. In add-on, the journal editors can play a very important role and may exist able to intervene in such situation past discussing the bug with the reviewer. This outcome may have more than bear on in the context of postal service‐publication peer review. Publicly available harsh, unnecessary, negative and insensitive comments can exist detrimental to author'south rapport and may take an touch on their confidence and ability to write in future.

Poor reviewer training

Formal training and preparation may assist reviewers develop appropriate review skills, only is often not widely available. The process itself is not easy to larn (Provenzale & Stanley 2006) and educational programmes do non prepare postgraduate students for the role of peer reviewer (Eastwood 2000). This, in turn, affects the confidence and ability of reviewers who may only learn the art of reviewing through trial and error. New reviewers usually do not have any grooming or awareness about how to review a paper. A reviewer may not take whatever mentorship or any experience of reviewing someone else's work. This result can exist overcome past ensuring that postgraduate students, doctoral and postal service‐doctoral academics are provided with appropriate grooming and guidance to develop their review and feedback skills (The British Academy 2007, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2011). Ane strategy may be that postgraduate students and emerging academics should be invited to review manuscripts every bit a third reviewer. Appropriate mentorship and guidance can be provided past introducing a buddy system where novice reviewers are 'buddied' with experienced reviewers. In either of the cases to a higher place, this needs to be done with the permission of the periodical and alleged and some journals inquire for this as a specific declaration when reviews are submitted. This may help novice reviewers to develop reviewing skills and cognition. Presently, very few journals give reviewers access to other reviewers' comments. Nevertheless, giving reviewers admission to other reviewers comments almost the same manuscript can likewise be a useful mode of helping reviewers amend their knowledge and skills (Business firm of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2011). As manuscripts are now reviewed electronically, providing access to other reviewers' comments and feedback is fairly straightforward and hassle‐free.

Variable review requirements

There is a wide variation in the review requirements and expectations among unlike journals. Recently, various publishers and journals have started to develop guidelines to help reviewers understand the expectations. Some journals are very prescriptive and await strict compliance by the reviewers, while others may be less specific about their expectations. Although it is of import to provide some guidance about review and communicate expectation to ensure consistency in review, too much prescription may limit the reviewer's ability to critically assess and feedback on strengths and areas of comeback of a manuscript. Again providing appropriate guidance, mentorship opportunities and sharing of fellow reviewer's reports tin aid reviewers identify their own manner of review and develop confidence and ability to provide effective feedback.

Ineffectiveness of peer review

Research examining effectiveness of peer review is still limited (Patel 2014). The lack of enquiry supporting or negating the effectiveness of peer review contributes to ambiguity almost the effectiveness of peer review and fuels the criticism against peer review (Jefferson et al. 2002, Ware 2008, Patel 2014). Some researchers consider peer review as an unreliable method of quality assurance and error detection (Godlee et al. 1998, Patel 2014). They believe that reviewing by two reviewers is insufficient to identify bug with the manuscript. The authors maintain that to make the peer review process reliable and comparable, an editor is required to have a minimum of six reviewers, whereas generally, it is often hard to place two or three reviewers to review a paper (Rothwell & Martyn 2000, Ware 2008). It should as well be recognized that peer review is not a scientific procedure; it is a process based on people and the judgements they brand. People differ in their expertise, opinions and experience and, therefore, their stance or feedback about same manuscript can differ. In addition, reviewers practice not make the decisions about which manuscript to take or decline, but only provide their view on a manuscript, which aids the editors in making a decision.

Peer review and bias

The peer review process cannot be complimentary from bias; bias tin can but exist minimized. More often than not a single bullheaded review is criticized for the risk of bias. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the blinding process itself is questionable (Kearney & Freda 2005, Baggs et al. 2008, Ware 2008). Some other flaw of the peer review system is the biased decisions of the peer reviewers. Evidence suggests that reviewers tend to have papers that provide confirmatory results and reject those that do non confirm established theories (Mahoney 1977). Similarly, peer reviewers tend to accept studies that offer positive results and reject those that study negative results. This consequence is referred to as 'file drawer problem' (Rosenthal 1979 p. 638) equally the research with negative results due to non‐acceptance remain in the file drawer of the researcher and are not disseminated to the wider community. Some researchers take even mentioned that peer review works against innovative studies (Armstrong 1996, Hojat et al. 2003, Lee, et al.2013), a point reinforced recently past the onetime Editor of the BMJ (Smith 2015). Reviews can also exist influenced past the characteristics of authors (gender, political or religious affiliation, institutional amalgamation, nationality, country of origin) (Smith 2015, Fox et al. 2016) and whether they are identified past the editor or proposed by the author (Kowalczuk et al. 2015). These issues tin be minimized by ensuring reviewers are aware of and adhere to ethical principles of review.

Despite diverse issues, the usefulness of the peer review process cannot be overlooked. The procedure of peer review, mainly in publishing simply also in other aspects of academic life is regularly discussed (Fyfe 2015, Smith 2015). The process recently came under the scrutiny of the British authorities (House of Commons Science and Engineering science Committee 2011) and other bodies (Watson 2012) afterwards some accusations about biased publishing in the field of climate scientific discipline. The scrutiny was in‐depth and prolonged, only the conclusion was that the peer review system in information technology various manifestations were far from perfect, simply that information technology was the all-time nosotros had and should go along.

Determination

It is essential to remember that peer reviewing is a voluntary action, which means that the reviewers are not paid for their work and ofttimes consummate reviews in their own time. While contributing to reviewing processes is a professional person and moral obligation of whatsoever writer whose work has undergone peer review (Priem & Rasheed 2006), information technology is important to make this activity as rewarding and developmental as possible. Recognizing reviewers for their piece of work by publishing their names in the journal or providing them with awards and recognition certificates tin be a useful strategy. More recently, diverse publishers and journals take started using these strategies to recognize the reviewers' contribution. Such strategies may be useful and may increase the motivation of reviewers and, in turn, may enhance quality of review by reviewers.

Peer review is 1 of diverse mechanisms used to ensure the quality of publications in academic journals. It helps authors, journal editors and the reviewer themselves. It is a process that is unlikely to be eliminated from the publication process. All forms of peer review take their own strengths and weaknesses. To brand the process more effective and useful, it is of import to develop peer review skills, especially, among postgraduate students. At that place should exist published guidelines and help for novice peer reviewers. Mentoring new reviewers and sharing the feedback of different reviewers tin help new reviewers. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the peer review process.

Conflict of interest

None.

Writer contributions

All authors have agreed on the last version and run across at to the lowest degree one of the following criteria [recommended by the ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/)]:

• substantial contributions to conception and pattern, acquisition of data, or assay and estimation of data;

• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

References

• Amsen E. (2014) What is Post‐Publication Peer Review? Bachelor at http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/07/08/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/on 15 December 2015.
• Armstrong S.J. (1996) Nosotros need to rethink the editorial role of peer reviewers. The Relate of Higher Education 43(9), B3. [Google Scholar]
• Baggs J.M., Broome M.Due east., Dougherty M.C., Freda G.C. & Kearney Yard.H. (2008) Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing 64(2), 131–138. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Barbash F. (2015) Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer‐review scandal. Washington Post. Bachelor at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-bear on-other-journals/ on 30 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
• Bernstein R. (2015) PLOS 1 Ousts Reviewer, Editor Afterward Sexist Peer‐Review Storm ScienceInsider one May. Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/04/sexist-peer-review-elicits-furious-twitter-response on 07 December 2015
• Bordage Thou. & Caelleigh A.Due south. (2001) A tool for reviewers: "Review Criteria for Inquiry Manuscripts". Bookish Medicine 76(9), 904–908. [Google Scholar]
• Brazeau G.A., DiPiro J.T., Fincham J.East., Boucher B.A. & Tracy T.S. (2008) Your Role and Responsibilities in the Manuscript Peer Review Procedure. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Pedagogy 72(3), 69. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Broome M., Dougherty M.C., Freda Chiliad.C., Kearney Thousand.H. & Baggs J.Grand. (2010) Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: an international survey. Nursing Ethics 17(6), 741–748. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Christenbery T.L. (2011) Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 23(1), 15–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Committee on Publication Ethics (2013) COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE; Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf on 20 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
• Dipboye R.L. (2006) Peer reviews in the production of cognition: why I stopped worrying and learned to appreciate the flaws in the review process In Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing (Baruch Y., Sullivan Southward. & Schepmyer H., eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. three–26. [Google Scholar]
• Dividoff F. & DeAngelis C.D. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Journal of American Medical Association 286, 1232–1233. [Google Scholar]
• Eastwood S. (2000) Ethical bug in biomedical publication In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication (Jones A.H. & McLellan F., eds), Johns Hopkins Academy Press, Baltimore, pp. 250–275. [Google Scholar]
• Evans A.T., McNutt R.A., Fletcher S.W. & Fletcher R.H. (1993) The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good‐quality reviews. Journal of General Internal Medicine 8(viii), 422–428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pull a fast one on C.Due west., Burns C.South. & Meyer J.A. (2016) Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process just non peer review outcomes at an ecology journal. Functional Environmental thirty(1), 140–153. [Google Scholar]
• Fyfe A. (2015) Peer Review: Not as old equally you Might Think. Times Higher Eductaion; Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.co.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/features/peer-review-not-onetime-you lot-might-think on 12 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
• Gilbert J.R., Williams East.Southward. & Lundberg Yard.D. (1994) Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association 272, 139–142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Godlee F., Gale C.R. & Martyn C.Due north. (1998) Event on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports‐A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Clan 280, 237–240. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Henly S.J. & Dougherty M.C. (2009) Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nursing Outlook 57, 18–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hojat M., Gonnella J.S. & Caelleigh A.S. (2003) Impartial judgment by the 'gatekeepers' of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Wellness Sciences Teaching 8, 75–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer Review in Scientific Publications. The Stationery Office Ltd, London. [Google Scholar]
• Hunter J. (2012) Mail‐publication review: opning up scientific chat. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience vi, 63. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wager E. & Davidoff F. (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 2784–2786. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jefferson T., Rudin Chiliad., Brodney Folse S. & Davidoff F. (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2, MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kearney M.H. & Freda M.C. (2005) Nurse Editors' Views on the peer Review Process. Inquiry in Nursing & Health 28, 444–452. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kowalczuk M.K., Dudbridge F., Nanda Southward., Harriman S.Fifty., Patel J. & Moylan E.C. (2015) Retrospective assay of the quality of reports past author‐suggested and not‐author‐suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single‐blind peer review models. BMJ Open 5, e008707. doi:10.1136/bmjopen‐2015‐008707. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kriegeskorte N. (2012) Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post‐publicatoin peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6, 79. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kronick D.A. (1990) Peer‐review in 18th‐century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 1321–1322. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G. & Cronin B. (2013) Bias in peer review. Periodical of the American Society for Information Science and Applied science 64(i), two–17. [Google Scholar]
• Lipworth W.Fifty., Kerridge I.H., Carter Due south.M. & Little Chiliad. (2011) Journal peer review in context: a qualitative report of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science & Medicine 72, 1056–1063. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lovejoy T.I., Revenson T.A. & France C.R. (2011) Reviewing manuscripts for peer‐review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 42(1), 1–xiii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney 1000.J. (1977) Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research one(2), 161–175. [Google Scholar]
• Moylan East. (2015) Inappropriate Manipulation of Peer Review. BioMed Central blog; Available at http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/on 15 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
• Patel J. (2014) Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a example study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine 12(1), 1–7. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pierson C.A. (2011) Reviewing Periodical Manuscripts: An Easy to Follow Guide for whatever Nurse Reviewing Journal Manuscripts for Publication. Wiley‐Blackwell; Available at http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/24329-Nursing-ReviewingMSS12ppselfcover_8.5x11_for_web.pdf on fifteen March 2016. [Google Scholar]
• Priem R.L. & Rasheed A.A. (2006) "Reviewing as a Vital Professional Service" In Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing (Baruch Y., Sullivan S. & Schepmyer H., eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
• Provenzale J.Yard. & Stanley R.J. (2006) A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript. Periodical of Nuclear Medicine Technology 34(2), 92–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Relman A.Southward. & Angell M. (1989) How good is peer review? New England Periodical of Medicine 321(12), 827–829. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rennie D. (2003) Editorial peer review: its development and rationale In Peer Review in Health Sciences, 2nd edn (Godlee F. & Jefferson T., eds), BMJ Books, BMJ publishing grouping, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
• van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans Due south., Smith R. & Blackness Due north. (1998) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. Journal of American Medical Association 280, 234–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rosenthal R. (1979) The file drawer trouble and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86(iii), 638. [Google Scholar]
• Rothwell P.Chiliad. & Martyn C.N. (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers whatsoever greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123, 1964–1969. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Shattell M., Chinn P., Thomas S. & Cowling Due west.R. (2010) Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in 3 scholarly nursing journals. Periodical of Nursing Scholarship 42, 58–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Shea J.A., Caelleigh A.South., Pangaro L. & Steinecke A. (2001) Review process. Bookish Medicine 76(nine), 911–914. [Google Scholar]
• Smith R. (1999) Opening of BMJ peer review. British Medical Journal 318, 4–v. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Smith E. (2015) Ineffective at any dose? Why peer review but doesn't work. Times Higher Eductaion. Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.co.u.k./content/the-peer-review-drugs-dont-work on 15 March 2016. [Google Scholar]
• Teixeira da Silva J.A. & Dobránski C.Sc (2015) Bug with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post‐publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22, 22–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• The British Academy (2007) Peer Review: The Challenges for the Humanities and Social Sciences A British University Study. The British Academy; Available at from http://www.britac.air-conditioning.uk/policy/peer-review.cfm on 20 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
• Ware K. (2008) Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium, London. [Google Scholar]
• Watson R. (2012) Peer review under the spotlight in the U.k.. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(iv), 718–720. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Watson R. (2016) PubPeer: never heard of it? Y'all accept at present. Nurse Author & Editor 26(1), 2. [Google Scholar]

---

Manufactures from Nursing Open up are provided hither courtesy of Wiley-Blackwell

---

kingstat1976.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5050543/#:~:text=Publication%20in%20academic%20journals%20plays,with%20colleagues%20in%20the%20discipline.

Share this post