Peer Review Practices of Psychological Journals the Fate of Published Areticles Submitted Again
Indian J Anaesth. 2015 Aug; 59(8): 465–470.
'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes
Madhuri Southward Kurdi
Department of Anaesthesiology, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, Karnataka, Bharat
Abstract
Research and publications are an important part of academics. Nowadays, there is an increasing trend amid professionals including anaesthesiologists to submit scientific manufactures to journals for publication. Near journals are peer-reviewed which means that the articles they publish become through the peer review process. Peer review is carried out for assessing the inadequacies of research and manuscript grooming so that the all-time papers are published in a journal. Although peer review is a primal part of the procedure for the publishing of medical research, in that location are some limitations in the organization. Keeping this in listen, all aspects of peer reviewing were searched from books and journals for full text from PubMed and Google search. The information then gathered is presented in this article which focuses on the general aspects of the peer review process.
Keywords: Editorial, periodical article, peer review, role
INTRODUCTION
Peer review is the heart of the scientific publication process and represents the disquisitional phase based on which papers are published, academics promoted and Nobel prizes are won.[1] Peer is a person who is equal in ability, continuing, rank or value.[2] Peer reviewers are experts who have knowledge, feel and take involvement in the manuscript topic.[3] Scientific peer review is defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance and originality past qualified experts.[iv] Peer review, besides known every bit 'refereeing', is the disquisitional assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals past experts who are not a function of the editorial staff.[5] Peer reviews represent some of the most valuable and interesting reflections on other peoples' work.[6]
Of late, the trend to submit manuscripts to journals for publication is increasing rapidly amidst medical professionals, including anaesthesiologists. About scholarly journals are peer-reviewed, which means that they publish articles which go through the peer review process. People have varied notions well-nigh the peer review process,[1] and the procedure has been increasingly misunderstood.[7] Authors may not clearly realise how and why their article was accepted or rejected later on peer review. A sound cognition of the process of peer reviewing would be beneficial to both the reviewers and authors and as well would aid to improve the peer review organisation. A literature search was performed on the topic of peer review with a focus on the meaning, types, nature, benefits and limitations of the peer review procedure. The information was derived from journal articles and the net via Google Scholar using the words/phrases 'peer review', 'types of peer review', 'benefits and drawbacks of peer review' and 'the role of peer reviewers'. The literature search was performed betwixt the years 2000 up to date. Few older articles gave insight into some basic aspects of peer reviewing including the history.
HISTORY OF SCHOLARLY PEER REVIEWING
Earlier, editors of scientific journals oft made publication decisions without seeking outside input.[8] The process of soliciting peers to evaluate scholarly work prior to publication was initiated by Henry Oldenburg, editor of the first scientific journal, 'Philosophical Transactions'.[9] The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the 'Medical Essays and Observations' published past the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731.[4] The preface to the first volume of this publication stated: 'Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed co-ordinate to the discipline matter to those members who are near versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the writer'.[10] Peer review in the systemised and institutionalised course as we know today has developed largely since the second world war partly as a response to the large increase in scientific research during this menstruation.[11] Currently, peer review is accepted as a primal role of the process for publishing of medical research.[12]
Goals of peer review
Peer review is the ways through which journal editors can confer authenticity and say-so upon scientific and scholarly papers.[13] Peers act equally sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication.[4] Peer reviewers are mainly expected to provide effective comments and suggestions (called as the 'souvenir from anonymous') to improve the quality and value of the manuscript.[14] They tin also notice errors and fraud in a publication.[1]
THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Manuscript review is an intellectual process with objective and subjective elements.[xv] On receipt, editors showtime determine the overall quality and general suitability of the manuscript. The specifications and guidelines related to the technical aspects such as the discussion count, the sequence of manuscript subtitles and subheadings, language, correctness of citation entries in the article and the corresponding references, overall report design and methodology are assessed in technical review. If judged to be good, the manuscript is sent to peer reviewers for assessment.[thirteen] The editors demand to ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected.[xvi] An electronic post invitation is sent to the reviewer with a date within which the completed review is requested (due east.g., 'within 30 days').[17] After receiving the invitation to review, the reviewers start confirm that the scientific content of the manuscript is within their expanse of expertise. They may check for conflicts of interest, academic or fiscal, if obvious. They may accept the invitation or pass up.[17] They go through the manuscript and submit their remarks. The journal editor thoughtfully considers the remarks of the reviewers and makes a decision about the acceptability or otherwise of the manuscript for publication.[4,13] When a newspaper is resubmitted after 'major revisions', it is sent to one or more of the original reviewers to get their stance regarding the revision. This is the process of re reviewing.[17] The manuscript may be sent for additional revisions ('re-revision') equally felt necessary any number of times, till the referee and/or the editor is satisfied. Traditionally, comments of ii referees is the mandatory norm (discussed beneath) only the editor may decide on more than based on his assessment of the manuscript and the quality of remarks received from the two. At whatsoever stage, stance of additional reviewers may too exist solicited by the editor if he/she is still not certain near the bookish quality.[18] The reviewers' opinions are normally respected by the editor.[18] The reviewers merely requite a recommendation. Ultimately, it is the editor who takes the decision and determines what gets published.[half-dozen,18]
SELECTION AND GRADING OF PEER REVIEWERS
Skill in scientific peer reviewing may be ill-divers.[12] The reviewer selection processes of most journals, and thus, the qualifications of their reviewers, are sick-divers.[19,20] The editor or his squad members select the reviewers. A minimum of two professionals are selected on the basis of qualities like familiarity with the topic, diverseness, skill with the review process, sensitivity, honesty and punctuality.[11,thirteen] Many journals keep an electronic database of reviewers with their names and surface area of expertise.[17] Ideally, editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers, maintain and update their database and stop to utilise reviewers who consistently produce poor quality, discourteous or late reviews.[16] Sometimes, a diverse group of reviewers is purposefully sought to gather opinions from various angles.[xiii] A report showed that the almost popular reason given by reviewers for doing the work of reviewing was to play their office every bit members of the academic customs, to enhance their reputation, to reach fame, to increase their risk of being offered a function in the journal'south editorial team, reviewer receptions at conferences etc.[11] Having likewise little experience in review work and not being good in passing critical comments are some of the reasons which people cite when non agreeing to go peer reviewers.[14]
Types of scholarly peer review
There tin can be peer reviews either pre-publication or post-publication. Pre-publication reviews include varieties like single-bullheaded review, double-bullheaded review and open review.[21]
In a single-blind review, the identity of the reviewer is not revealed to the author but the identity of the author is known to the reviewer.[22] Single-blind review shelters reviewers from their review consequences and helps them to detect various conflicts of interest concerning the authors.[23] In a double-bullheaded review, both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous. The article file itself is blinded at submission; that is, no identity of author or institution is immune in the file, and the same file is sent for reviews; or such details are removed earlier sending the file to referees. The reviewer/reviewers' comments that the author receives are compiled by the editor through the organisation where the reviewer identity is not available for the author.[21]
In an open up review, the reviewer and writer are known to each other.[21] The benefits of open peer review include transparency, accountability and giving credit to reviewers.[24] However, immature junior reviewers may be intimidated into writing inappropriately favourable reviews of their powerful senior colleagues.[25] Furthermore, reviewers may go less critical, scientific standards may turn down and professional relationships may endure because of the creation of inappropriate dialogues between author and reviewer in this system.[25] Some studies have revealed that reviewer reports operating under an open peer review organization were of higher quality than those under a closed organization.[26,27] A study institute that open reviews were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews.[27] Open review though currently adopted by some reputable journals is still described every bit an experimental organization.[28]
Mail-publication review
It is a variant of open review, in which all readers are able to review, comment on the paper and rate information technology on a numerical scale post-obit publication. This tin occur with or without the conventional pre-publication review.[11] It is an experiment designed to increase the speed of the review process.[10] In a study, it was establish that it served as a useful supplement to formal peer review. Encouragement of instant reactions and discouragement of thoughtful review are some disadvantages of post-publication review.[11] Newer models of peer review have also been described[21] [Table 1].
Table one
Newer models of peer review
Reviewer queries
Reviewers generally ask questions based on checklists (guidelines) sometimes provided by editors[11,13,18,29,30] [Table 2].
Table 2
Questions that reviewers ask about papers
Effect of peer review comments on the author
Editors usually share all revisions with the writer. Sometimes, certain reviews that are biased, not respectful or comprise comments that focus on the author rather than the manuscript may be discredited by the editor and not sent to the author.[31] Bad comments can affect the author's conviction or make the author experience humiliated and get confused. Skillful comments may affirm the author'due south worth and give specific support directed at improving his/her piece of work. Feedback from peers leads to a thoughtful reception of criticism, a search for confirmation by going to other sources, questioning and self-corrections by the authors.[32]
DRAWBACKS OF THE PEER REVIEW Procedure
The peer review system though very important, has some imperfections and drawbacks.[12] Many professionals, particularly novice scholars exercise not possess an adequate cognition of how to finer critique research.[33] An experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers failed to detect some manuscript errors.[34] The most widely recognised failure of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality piece of work.
In 1796, the periodical editor of 'Philosophical Transactions' rejected Edward Jenner'south study of the kickoff vaccination against smallpox.[35] A study found that peer reviewers often neglect to discover important deficiencies in the reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials.[36] The responses received in a survey of a sample of scientists who were authors of highly cited articles indicated that a majority of them had faced the issues of manuscript rejection, scepticism, ignorance and incomprehension by the peer reviewers.[37]
The reviewer may prefer a stringent approach in an attempt to serve as the periodical'south gatekeeper, and this tin lead to harshness in the tone and content of reviewers' comments.[13]
Unlike reviewers may offer conflicting reviews considering they may expect, notice and value different qualities in an academic submission leading to problems in the editorial conclusion.[38] A common source of alien advice is the length of the manuscript.[18]
There could be nationality, linguistic communication and speciality related bias.[11] In that location may be a potent bias against 'negative studies'.[39] Peer reviewers can suffer from intellectual suppression due to: (one) The Matthew effect (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer): The manuscripts of famous researchers have greater chances of getting published whereas less pop authors' works may go rejected. (2) Heider'southward assimilation-contrast theory: We experience concordant affective reactions to the ideas of persons who belong to our in-groups and discordant reactions to those who do not.[40] Single-blind review co-ordinate to some authors encourages an unconscious bias towards prominent authors or prestigious institutions.[39] Gender bias is a possibility when reviewers know the identity of the author. Many studies provide bear witness that double-bullheaded review is more off-white to authors from less prestigious institutions and to women authors.[22] Double-blind review decreases the enthusiasm of reviewers, and reduces their timeliness. It places extra burdens on the editorial team, reviewers and authors.[22]
Information technology is difficult to identify and motivate high quality peer reviewers because they are increasingly busy and frequently find information technology hard to free up time to do reviews.[41,42] Many reviewers devote considerable amounts of fourth dimension and energy, frequently reviewing for multiple journals without incentive.[iv,6,43] Many capable intellectuals avert review work and if they agree to exercise it, they give information technology their last priority. Many reviewers do not terminate the review process before the set deadline, thus causing a delay in the publication process.[41] Some reviewers take their task also seriously. They become a menace by decimating an article, or becoming quasi-authors themselves.[41]
Journals vary in their peer review standards. Acceptance of an article past a peer reviewed journal does not tell much about the quality or originality of the article.[11] Nowadays, there are many predatory journals that accuse publication fees but deliberately omit the peer review procedure. This amounts to editorial misconduct.[44]
Lack of facilities like non-availability of admission to full text articles on PubMed or other sources to the majority of reviewers and to some editors is one of the major limitations of the peer review process.[45]
MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE PEER REVIEW Process
-
Blinding tin reduce bias in the review process and encourage reviewers to give their honest appraisal.[29] A survey showed that 56% open respondents preferred double-blind review followed by 25% for single-blind, thirteen% for open and 5% for post-publication review.[xi]
-
Specialisation and formal training of young reviewers showed improvement in peer review in a randomised trial.[46] Reviewers of inquiry reports should be well versed in the scientific method and statistics.[29] Preparation, ongoing appraisal and revalidation if provided to individuals who peer review randomised controlled trials can help them to ameliorate.[21]
-
Reviewers can be recognised and rewarded past using reviewer centric approaches like Reviewer Alphabetize, Reviewer Index Directory and Global Reviewer Index Directory. This can assistance produce high-quality reviewers.[41] Incentives like free subscription to the journal, acknowledgement in the journal and offering of discounts in author publication charges by the journal tin can encourage scientists for reviewing.[eleven]
-
A committed peer reviewer system and use of beneficial technology past peer reviewers can overcome aberrant attitude in the authors and foreclose scientific fraud.[47]
-
Adopting the Wide Daylight Publication Model may pb to better reviews. This model includes openness at three levels-disclosing submissions and reviews, making reviewers accountable for their actions, reviewer rating by readers and opening up the editorial bureaucracy for reviewers with good ratings and reputation.[6]
-
A primal to the success of the peer review process is the journal editor who must be rigorous in selecting and deselecting reviewers, be vigilant about the subjective elements of the procedure and ensure that it is fair.[i,13]
Conclusion
Peer review is the best manner to ensure quality control of submitted scientific textile. This tin be accomplished past adopting different types of scholarly peer review. Equally with any other system, the peer review organization has some imperfections. Several strategies are being tried to better the system. Honest, timely, competent and fair work by peer reviewers combined with competent and sincere editorial supervision tin ensure quality assurance of the peer review process and evolve the system into a process that produces a good scientific output.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
At that place are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
one. Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178–82. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in scientific discipline? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is information technology all a case of: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that skillful men do nix"? Vasc Health Adventure Manag. 2007;three:39–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Kotur PF. How to write a scientific article for a medical journal? Indian J Anaesth. 2002;46:21–5. [Google Scholar]
4. Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31:145–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. International Commission of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Requirement for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. 2008. [Terminal accessed on 2015 Feb 17]. Available from: http://world wide web.icmje.org .
6. Wicherts JM, Kievit RA, Bakker M, Borsboom D. Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:20. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Daniel K. Einstein versus the physical review. Phys Today. 2005;58:43–eight. [Google Scholar]
ix. Berkenkotter C. The power and perils of peer review. Rhetor Rev. 1995;13:245–8. [Google Scholar]
x. Rennie D. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer Review in Health Sciences. 2d ed. London: BMJ Books; 2003. [Final accessed on 2015 Jul 29]. pp. i–13. Available from: http://www.culik.com/1190fall2012/Paper_1_files/rennie.pdf . [Google Scholar]
12. Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e40. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Rojewski JW, Domenico DM. The fine art and politics of peer review. J Career Tech Educ. 2004;20:41–54. [Google Scholar]
14. Annesley TM. Seven reasons not to exist a peer reviewer - And why these reasons are wrong. Clin Chem. 2012;58:677–nine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Coelho RJ, LaForge J. Manuscript characteristics affecting reviewers' decisions for rehabilitation counseling-related journals. J Rehabil. 2000;66:4–8. [Google Scholar]
16. Rees Thousand. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, 2011. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [Last accessed on 2015 Feb 16]. Bachelor from: http://www.publicationethics.org/
17. Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42:1–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Schramm HL, Jr, Miranda LE. Responding to peer review and editor's comments. In: Jennings CA, Lauer TA, Vondracek B, editors. Scientific Communication for Natural Resource Professionals. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society; 2012. [Last accessed on 2014 Dec 09]. pp. 135–42. Available from: http://www.web.fisheries.org/proofs/sci . [Google Scholar]
19. Callaham M. The evaluation and training of peer reviewers. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, editors. Peer Review in Health Sciences. second ed. London: BMJ Books; 2003. pp. 164–82. [Google Scholar]
xx. Steinman WC, Lebeau DL, Michaels RK. Prague: the Czech republic; 1997. A Survey of Journal Editors Regarding the Review Process for Original Clinical Research. [Abstruse]; Tertiary International Peer Review Congress; 1997, 18 September. [Google Scholar]
21. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A instance report of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med. 2014;12:128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Pontille D, Torny D. The Bullheaded Shall See! The Question of Anonymity in Periodical Peer Review. Ada: A Periodical of Gender, New Media and Technology. 2014. [Final accessed on 2015 Jun 27]. p. 4. Bachelor from: http://www.adanewmedia.org/2014/04/issue4-pontilletorny .
24. Moylan EC, Harold S, O'Neill C, Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review procedure exercise you lot prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014;15:55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Hymans KC. Letter of the alphabet. Lancet. 1996;34:132–iii. [Google Scholar]
26. Kowalczuk One thousand, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Haaiman SL, Moylan EC. A comparison of the quality of reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers and editor-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open up or closed peer review models. [Last accessed on 2015 Jul 29]; F1000 Posters. 2013 4:1252. Available from: http://f1000research.com/posters/1094564 . [Google Scholar]
27. Walsh E, Rooney Grand, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open up peer review: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;176:47–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Zellmer WA. Editorial. What editors expect of reviewers. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1977;34:819. [Google Scholar]
xxx. Winck JC, Fonseca JA, Azevedo LF, Wedzicha JA. To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol. 2011;17:96–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Yang G, Badger R, Yu Z. A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing grade. J Second Lang Writ. 2006;fifteen:179–200. [Google Scholar]
32. Williams HC. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51:79–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Seals DR, Tanaka H. Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;23:52–viii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Berlin JA, Callaham ML. Who reviews the reviewers. Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance? Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:310–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Michaels D. Politicizing peer review: The Scientific perspective. In: Wagner W, Steinzor R, editors. Rescuing Scientific discipline from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research. New York Cambridge: University Printing; 2006. pp. 219–38. [Google Scholar]
36. Hopewell Southward, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde Thousand, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: Retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Campanario JM, Acedo Eastward. Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58:734–43. [Google Scholar]
38. Arrington P. Some thoughts as changing the review process for academic journals: A personal exploration. Rhetor Rev. 1995;thirteen:249–53. [Google Scholar]
39. Peters D, Ceci S. Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1982;5:187–255. [Google Scholar]
41. Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr. 2013;11:274–84. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected past risk lonely? Brain. 2000;123:1964–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much exercise they review? JAMA. 1990;263:1338–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Shelomi G. Editorial misconduct-definition, cases, and causes. Publications. 2014;2:51–sixty. [Google Scholar]
45. Bajwa SJ. Unethical practices in anesthetic research and publication: Clinical touch on, consequences and preventive measures. Saudi J Anaesth. 2013;7:491–2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Schroter S, Blackness N, Evans Due south, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Harsoor Southward, Gangadhar S. Fraud in anaesthetic research and publication. Indian J Anaesth. 2012;56:one–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Indian Journal of Anaesthesia are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4551022/
0 Response to "Peer Review Practices of Psychological Journals the Fate of Published Areticles Submitted Again"
Post a Comment