-
Journal of Electrocardiology 2016Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is... (Review)
Review
Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is dismissed. Very little objective evidence, however, has been amassed to guide the manuscript peer review process. Rather, it is learned by experience and mentoring: by doing reviews, receiving reviews of one's own work, and by obtaining feedback from seasoned reviewers. Here, I lay out my perspective on this cornerstone of the scientific endeavor.
Topics: Editorial Policies; Interprofessional Relations; Manuscripts, Medical as Topic; Peer Review; Publishing; Writing
PubMed: 26850498
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2016.01.001 -
PLoS Biology Mar 2022Pre-registration promises to address some of the problems with traditional peer-review. As we publish our first Registered Report, we take stock of two years of...
Pre-registration promises to address some of the problems with traditional peer-review. As we publish our first Registered Report, we take stock of two years of submissions and the future possibilities of this approach.
Topics: Biology; Peer Review; Publishing
PubMed: 35358173
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001611 -
Dermatology Online Journal Mar 2018This commentary considers the reasons for rejection of manuscripts during the peer-review process. Poor methodology, inappropriate statistical analysis, irrelevance, and... (Review)
Review
This commentary considers the reasons for rejection of manuscripts during the peer-review process. Poor methodology, inappropriate statistical analysis, irrelevance, and technical errors are cited frequently as motives for manuscript rejection. Guidance, such as selecting an applicable journal, conducting a rigorous study, and writing efficiently, is provided for authors to prevent initial rejection. Researchers are reassured that rejection is a common consequence of peer-review and subsequent submissions to other journals are often successful publications.
Topics: Dermatology; Editorial Policies; Humans; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Writing
PubMed: 29634877
DOI: No ID Found -
Singapore Medical Journal Feb 2022
Topics: Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 34602311
DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2021139 -
Cell Systems Oct 2018
Topics: Communication; Humans; Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 30359619
DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2018.10.004 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2019
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Forecasting; Humans; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 30971533
DOI: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_296_19 -
F1000Research 2018Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these...
Publishing peer review materials alongside research articles promises to make the peer review process more transparent as well as making it easier to recognise these contributions and give credit to peer reviewers. Traditionally, the peer review reports, editors letters and author responses are only shared between the small number of people in those roles prior to publication, but there is a growing interest in making some or all of these materials available. A small number of journals have been publishing peer review materials for some time, others have begun this practice more recently, and significantly more are now considering how they might begin. This article outlines the outcomes from a recent workshop among journals with experience in publishing peer review materials, in which the specific operation of these workflows, and the challenges, were discussed. Here, we provide a draft as to how to represent these materials in the JATS and Crossref data models to facilitate the coordination and discoverability of peer review materials, and seek feedback on these initial recommendations.
Topics: Authorship; Metadata; Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 30416719
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.16460.1 -
Microbial Genomics Apr 2019
Topics: Humans; Manuscripts as Topic; Peer Review, Research; Preprints as Topic
PubMed: 30938670
DOI: 10.1099/mgen.0.000259 -
The FEBS Journal May 2021Peer review, the system by which manuscripts submitted for publication are evaluated by experts (peers) in a field, is the cornerstone of high-quality scholarly...
Peer review, the system by which manuscripts submitted for publication are evaluated by experts (peers) in a field, is the cornerstone of high-quality scholarly publishing. By commenting on the originality, significance and completeness of submitted manuscripts, peer reviewers improve the standard of published work and play a key part in preventing flawed research from being widely distributed. This Words of Advice article highlights the importance of developing the skill of reviewing papers from early on in a scientific career and provides tips on navigating all stages of the process, as well as flagging some common mistakes.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Research Report
PubMed: 33486891
DOI: 10.1111/febs.15705 -
The Permanente Journal 2019The goal of physician peer review has been to assess and improve the quality of care by individual physicians. Unfortunately, this enshrined piece of medical practice... (Review)
Review
The goal of physician peer review has been to assess and improve the quality of care by individual physicians. Unfortunately, this enshrined piece of medical practice suffers from deep flaws that hamper the achievement of assessment and improvement. This institution is in serious need of disruption, both for the safety of patients and for the wellness of practicing physicians. This commentary describes the inherent flaws of physician practice review and how physicians and health care organizations can address them.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Physicians; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Quality of Health Care
PubMed: 30939287
DOI: 10.7812/TPP/18-207