Peer review- back bone of scientific writing

INTRODUCTION

Peers are the research experts having deeper insights in their specialization. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review. Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

Peer review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process. Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation.

Advantages of Peer review

By undergoing peer review, manuscripts should become:

• More robust - peer reviewers may point out gaps in a paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.

• Easier to read - if parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest changes.

• More useful - peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.

The peer review process

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editorial team will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.

Types of peer review

Peer review comes in different types. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community but there is an increasing call towards more transparency around the peer review process.

Single blind review: In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single blind review include:

• Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.

• Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.

• Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.

Double-blind review: Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

• Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history.

• Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity

Triple-blind review: With triple-blind review, reviewers are anonymous and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). However, it should be noted that:

• The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable

• As with double-blind review; there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author’s identity from their style, subject matter, citation patterns or a number of other methodologies.

Open review: Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:

• Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page.

• Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, whether signed or anonymous.

• Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) together with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article.

• Publication of the paper after a quick check and opening a discussion forum to the community who can comment (named or anonymous).

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism.