-
Journal of the American College of... Nov 2023The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of... (Review)
Review
The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever.
Topics: Humans; Pandemics; Peer Review; Medicine; Communication; Data Accuracy; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 37968021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.08.056 -
Birth Defects Research Dec 2023
PubMed: 37861127
DOI: 10.1002/bdr2.2263 -
Respiratory Care Mar 2024The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an...
The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback.
Topics: Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Peer Review
PubMed: 38538018
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.11838 -
Journal of the World Federation of... Apr 2024
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Peer Review
PubMed: 38575272
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2024.03.004 -
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental... Aug 2024
Topics: Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Cooperative Behavior; Peer Review, Research; Peer Review
PubMed: 38217257
DOI: 10.1111/jpm.13019 -
Nature Materials Sep 2023
PubMed: 37644227
DOI: 10.1038/s41563-023-01661-7 -
American Journal of Physiology.... Aug 2023In Part 1 of this Perspective, I share my thoughts on several basic principles of scientific peer review for early career-stage investigators. I begin by defining...
In Part 1 of this Perspective, I share my thoughts on several basic principles of scientific peer review for early career-stage investigators. I begin by defining scientific peer review and its primary goals and briefly discuss the historical development of peer review. I then describe the reputed benefits of the process for science and society. Next, I characterize the "2-stage" structure of peer review, as well as the most prevalent evaluation formats used for determining scientific merit of peer-reviewed documents, including grant applications and manuscripts. I then discuss the primary responsibilities and core values of scientific peer review and offer several general tips for how to be an effective scientific peer reviewer. I next share commonly voiced concerns about the peer review process and oft-cited suggestions for improving the system. I finish the commentary by emphasizing numerous benefits of having a sound working knowledge of peer review for enhancing research career development and describe various opportunities for obtaining experience in peer review. This discussion of general issues is intended to lay a proper foundation upon which to address specific aspects of peer review of manuscripts in part 2 and grant applications in part 3 of the Perspective.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Research Personnel
PubMed: 37272782
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00062.2023 -
Journal of Clinical Apheresis Feb 2024Little instruction in writing manuscripts for peer review is provided in nursing school or medical school. To relatively inexperienced would-be authors, including junior... (Review)
Review
Little instruction in writing manuscripts for peer review is provided in nursing school or medical school. To relatively inexperienced would-be authors, including junior physicians and allied health professionals, this avenue of professional communication may sometimes seem to be unattainable. Yet many of them are energetic and insightful, and have the potential to make contributions to the literature. This article aims to provide an explanation of the components of the peer review manuscript and advice regarding how to go about writing one so as to overcome the writer's block that inexperienced authors may frequently experience.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Writing; Peer Review
PubMed: 38390668
DOI: 10.1002/jca.22108 -
American Journal of Physiology.... Oct 2023In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate...
In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discussing the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the two distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Peer Review; Research Personnel
PubMed: 37519254
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00112.2023 -
Structural Heart : the Journal of the... Jul 2023
PubMed: 37520140
DOI: 10.1016/j.shj.2023.100207