-
Physiological Reports Dec 2017
Topics: Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Physiology
PubMed: 29279416
DOI: 10.14814/phy2.13559 -
Journal of Speech, Language, and... Jun 2016This letter briefly reviews ideas about the purpose and benefits of peer review and reaches some idealistic conclusions about the process.
PURPOSE
This letter briefly reviews ideas about the purpose and benefits of peer review and reaches some idealistic conclusions about the process.
METHOD
The author uses both literature review and meditation born of long experience.
RESULTS
From a cynical perspective, peer review constitutes an adversarial process featuring domination of the weak by the strong and exploitation of authors and reviewers by editors and publishers, resulting in suppression of new ideas, delayed publication of important research, and bad feelings ranging from confusion to fury. More optimistically, peer review can be viewed as a system in which reviewers and editors volunteer thousands of hours to work together with authors, to the end of furthering human knowledge.
CONCLUSION
Editors and authors will encounter both peer-review cynics and idealists in their careers, but in the author's experience the second are far more prevalent. Reviewers and editors can help increase the positive benefits of peer review (and improve the culture of science) by viewing the system as one in which they work with authors on behalf of high-quality publications and better science. Authors can contribute by preparing papers carefully prior to submission and by interpreting reviewers' and editors' suggestions in this collegial spirit, however difficult this may be in some cases.
Topics: Cooperative Behavior; Humans; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 27333021
DOI: 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0043 -
Translational Vision Science &... Mar 2023
Topics: Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 36920407
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.3.10 -
Genome Biology Nov 2018We describe the results of our year-long trial of transparent peer review and announce the adoption of transparent review as permanent policy.
We describe the results of our year-long trial of transparent peer review and announce the adoption of transparent review as permanent policy.
Topics: Peer Review
PubMed: 30482224
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0 -
The Journal of Neuroscience : the... Sep 2020
Topics: Neurosciences; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic; Trust
PubMed: 32968025
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2303-20.2020 -
Minerva Cardiology and Angiology Jun 2024
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Reward; Periodicals as Topic; Peer Review
PubMed: 38298050
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.23.06487-6 -
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 2018
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 29386410
DOI: 10.4103/jpgm.JPGM_618_17 -
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 -
The Journal of Experimental Medicine May 2012Last year, we came to the realization that online supplemental material had gotten out of control. In our conversations with authors and referees, we heard that the time...
Last year, we came to the realization that online supplemental material had gotten out of control. In our conversations with authors and referees, we heard that the time needed to produce it and thoroughly review it was increasing at an unsustainable pace. In response, we changed our policy on supplemental material. Well, we’re still listening. And we’re hearing author frustration with seemingly endless rounds of external review at high-impact journals. We want to let you know that the editors of have been working hard to avoid contributing to this problem.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Editorial Policies; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 22508838
DOI: 10.1084/jem.20120731 -
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