-
BMC Research Notes Apr 2022Journal peer review regulates the flow of ideas through an academic discipline and thus has the power to shape what a research community knows, actively investigates,...
Journal peer review regulates the flow of ideas through an academic discipline and thus has the power to shape what a research community knows, actively investigates, and recommends to policymakers and the wider public. We might assume that editors can identify the 'best' experts and rely on them for peer review. But decades of research on both expert decision-making and peer review suggests they cannot. In the absence of a clear criterion for demarcating reliable, insightful, and accurate expert assessors of research quality, the best safeguard against unwanted biases and uneven power distributions is to introduce greater transparency and structure into the process. This paper argues that peer review would therefore benefit from applying a series of evidence-based recommendations from the empirical literature on structured expert elicitation. We highlight individual and group characteristics that contribute to higher quality judgements, and elements of elicitation protocols that reduce bias, promote constructive discussion, and enable opinions to be objectively and transparently aggregated.
Topics: Peer Review
PubMed: 35382867
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06016-0 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Dec 2016
Topics: Humans; Internal Medicine; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 27704364
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-016-3875-z -
Translational Vision Science &... Mar 2023
Topics: Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 36920407
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.3.10 -
MBio Apr 2016The time-honored mechanism of allocating funds based on ranking of proposals by scientific peer review is no longer effective, because review panels cannot accurately...
The time-honored mechanism of allocating funds based on ranking of proposals by scientific peer review is no longer effective, because review panels cannot accurately stratify proposals to identify the most meritorious ones. Bias has a major influence on funding decisions, and the impact of reviewer bias is magnified by low funding paylines. Despite more than a decade of funding crisis, there has been no fundamental reform in the mechanism for funding research. This essay explores the idea of awarding research funds on the basis of a modified lottery in which peer review is used to identify the most meritorious proposals, from which funded applications are selected by lottery. We suggest that a modified lottery for research fund allocation would have many advantages over the current system, including reducing bias and improving grantee diversity with regard to seniority, race, and gender.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Financing, Organized; Humans; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 27073093
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00422-16 -
Orthopedics 2023
Topics: Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 36649647
DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20230103-01 -
Annals of Plastic Surgery Jan 2023
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Publishing; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 36409929
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003320 -
Physiological Reports Dec 2017
Topics: Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Physiology
PubMed: 29279416
DOI: 10.14814/phy2.13559 -
American Journal of Physiology.... Mar 2023In Part 3 of this Perspective on Publishing Particulars, I begin by providing several general writing tips to consider when developing a manuscript for publication. I...
In Part 3 of this Perspective on Publishing Particulars, I begin by providing several general writing tips to consider when developing a manuscript for publication. I then discuss the process involved in rigorously editing research papers and advance some important considerations for manuscript submission. I next share my thoughts and recommendations when attempting to interpret and respond to comments from the manuscript peer review process. Finally, I discuss author responsibilities after a manuscript is accepted for publication. Overall, this portion of the 3-part commentary seeks to complete a broader discussion on publishing in the biomedical sciences aimed at better informing early-stage investigators about many of the nuances of this critical area of professional development.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Writing; Peer Review; Research Personnel
PubMed: 36749293
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00270.2022 -
PLoS Biology Jan 2018
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Research; Research Design
PubMed: 29377883
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005203 -
American Journal of Physiology. Lung... Sep 2021
Topics: Cultural Diversity; Peer Review
PubMed: 34318697
DOI: 10.1152/ajplung.00306.2021