Abstract
The peer review process is used to evaluate research papers and journal articles submitted for publication, providing a filter that helps to ensure the quality, credibility, and validity of published research. Reviews are generally conducted by peers who have a deep understanding of the knowledge domain and possess expertise in the methodologies and instruments involved in the research. Academics are honored to be invited to review a paper, and they undertake to fulfill their scientific obligations as well as to uphold the academic integrity of the organization. The primary goal of a peer reviewer is to determine whether a work falls within the scope of the journal. In addition, reviewers should ensure that the study has been conducted according to established methodologies. Reviewers also look at the ethical aspects of a study, evaluate the presentation and readability of the work, and apply tenets of logic to assess the integrity of its arguments and conclusions. According to statistics, the average reviewer works on approximately eight reports each year. However, there is a dearth of information regarding the effectiveness of the peer review process. This article summarizes aspects of peer review in an attempt to elucidate the state of academic publishing.
Highlights
Peer reviews were first implemented 300 years ago when only a few centralized societies had royal permission to publish scientific works [1]
As the quantity of scientific research grows rapidly, journals are receiving an ever-increasing volume of manuscripts, often overwhelming editors' capacity to manage
As an aid to clarify the research question of the study, the authors should provide a brief review of the literature concerning one or more of the following topics: limitations and/or flaws in previous studies; unresolved gaps in the research; and/ or contradictory findings between studies
Summary
Peer reviews were first implemented 300 years ago when only a few centralized societies had royal permission to publish scientific works [1]. In 1731, the Royal Society of Edinburgh employed this process in the assessment of medical articles submitted for publication. Journal editors have been solely responsible for the selection of articles for publication. In the introduction section of the article, there should be a check as to whether the authors adequately describe the background and context of the research. As an aid to clarify the research question of the study, the authors should provide a brief review of the literature concerning one or more of the following topics: limitations and/or flaws in previous studies; unresolved gaps in the research; and/ or contradictory findings between studies. A detailed explanation of the objectives of the study should be included at the end of the introduction section and should be relevant to the research question
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Archives of Otorhinolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
