-
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 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Sep 2011
Topics: Journal Impact Factor; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Publishing
PubMed: 21824176
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.04062.x -
Cell Systems Aug 2017
Topics: Communication; Peer Review; Publishing; Research
PubMed: 28837812
DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2017.08.010 -
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 -
Indian Journal of Cancer 2020
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Publishing
PubMed: 31736468
DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_527_18 -
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 -
ELife Jun 2018eLife is conducting a trial in which authors will decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.
eLife is conducting a trial in which authors will decide how to respond to the issues raised during peer review.
Topics: Decision Making; Humans; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 29944117
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.36545 -
Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) Jan 2019
Topics: Editorial Policies; Neurosciences; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic; Saudi Arabia
PubMed: 30842403
DOI: 10.17712/nsj.2019.1.20190063 -
Journal of Lipid Research 2021
Topics: Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 34592244
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlr.2021.100124 -
Medical Teacher Sep 2020Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors...
Peer review is a powerful tool that steers the education and practice of medical researchers but may allow biased critique by anonymous reviewers. We explored factors unrelated to research quality that may influence peer review reports, and assessed the possibility that sub-types of reviewers exist. Our findings could potentially improve the peer review process. We evaluated the harshness, constructiveness and positiveness in 596 reviews from journals with open peer review, plus 46 reviews from colleagues' anonymously reviewed manuscripts. We considered possible influencing factors, such as number of authors and seasonal trends, on the content of the review. Finally, using machine-learning we identified latent types of reviewer with differing characteristics. Reviews provided during a northern-hemisphere winter were significantly harsher, suggesting a seasonal effect on language. Reviews for articles in journals with an open peer review policy were significantly less harsh than those with an anonymous review process. Further, we identified three types of reviewers: nurturing, begrudged, and blasé. Nurturing reviews were in a minority and our findings suggest that more widespread open peer reviewing could improve the educational value of peer review, increase the constructive criticism that encourages researchers, and reduce pride and prejudice in editorial processes.
Topics: Emotions; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Prejudice; Research Report
PubMed: 32631121
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1774527