Peer Review In Scientific Journals Research Articles

Editorial management and peer review in scientific journals: the challenges of rPOT

Editorial management and peer review in scientific journals: the challenges of rPOT

New Identities in Peer Review: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

Exalted by some people and criticized by others, since the peer review system has been implemented in scholarly journals it has transformed into an effective tool to select manuscripts of scientific merit for publication. Henry Oldenburg, the first Secretary of the Royal Society and creator of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (founded 1665), was one of the pioneers in implementing peer review in scientific journals. He started the peer-review system in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society by inviting 3 members of the Royal Society “who had more knowledge of the matters in question than he, to comment on submissions prior to making the decision about whether to publish.”1 At that time, the development of the peer-review system was linked to the concerns of scientists as science producers and consumers.2 As science producers, they wanted to have their work recognized by publishing in spaces valued by other members of the scientific community. As science consumers, they wanted to make sure that the studies elaborated by other scientists were evaluated with competence.2 The decisions taken by Oldenburg and the Council of the Royal Society to evaluate the quality of the content published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society constituted the foundations of peer review.2 Throughout the history of scholarly publishing, the peer-review process has typically been done by a small community of peers. These peers are defined in literature as “experienced researchers”3 and selected by the editors based on criteria such as academic seniority, academic degree, involvement […]

Advancing Kinesiology Through Improved Peer Review

Peer review of scholarship is essential to journal quality, evidence, knowledge advancement, and application of that knowledge in any field. This commentary summarizes recent literature on issues related to peer-review quality and current review practice in kinesiology and provides recommendations to improve peer review in kinesiology journals. We reviewed the literature on the characteristics of peer review in scientific journals and describe the status of peer review in kinesiology journals. Although the majority of scholars and editors strongly support the peer-review process, systematic research in several disciplines has shown somewhat positive but mixed results for the efficacy of peer review in evaluating the quality of and improving research reports. Past recommendations for improvement have focused on agreement between reviewers, standards for evaluating quality, and clarification of the editorial team roles. Research on interventions, however, indicates that improving reviewer performance is difficult. The specific research on peer review in kinesiology is limited. Six recommendations to improve peer review are proposed: publishing clear evaluation standards, establishing collaborative evaluation procedures and editorial team roles, utilizing online submission data to help improve reviewer comments, creating author appeals procedures, protecting reviewer time commitments, and improving reviewer recognition. There is considerable variation in peer-review criteria and procedures in kinesiology, and implementing several reasonable improvements may advance knowledge development and the field of kinesiology.

Give until it hurts.

Give until it hurts.

Peer Review: Does It Work?

The issue of peer review in scientific journals was recently thrust into the spotlight when it was suggested that climatologists supporting evidence of manmade global warming may have attempted to squelch publication of opposing data through influencing the peer review process. According to an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal , one prominent scientist, in a March 2003 email to a colleague, decried that the work of climate change “skeptics” had been accepted for publication in a respected peer-reviewed journal. He reportedly suggested that “perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”1 Whether there has been a systematic censure of data opposing the theory of climate change remains to be determined. Nevertheless, the potential for bias in peer review illustrated by these recent allegations should be a matter of concern to every journal editor and editorial board. Aesthetic Surgery Journal ( ASJ ) has taken a number of steps to ensure the high standards of our peer review process. First, each of our editors bears the responsibility of selecting appropriate reviewers with broad knowledge of the subject matter. Next, we have developed a transparent process that asks every reviewer to fully disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest relative to the scientific and/or clinical material under consideration. Disclosure of a conflict of interest virtually …

La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas

La revisión por pares en las revistas científicas

A Measure of Originality

Perhaps because there is no precise definition of scientific originality, studies of peer review in scientific journals have shown that reviews can be arbitrary or ineffective. In this Note, a potential reference point in evaluating originality that may be useful in analyzing the problem is presented and tested - a typology of scientific originality based on a structural analysis of the scientific paper. As reported in a paper, each of three elements of scientific work (hypothesis, methods and results) either has been previously reported in the scientific literature, or is newly reported. Scientific originality can then be defined as a permutation of new and old information: eight types of originality, ranging from all three elements being previously reported, to all elements being new. To determine if the typology has face validity, highly experienced scientists were asked by mail survey to use the typology in two exercises: rating the eight originality types, and assigning an originality type to highly-cited articles the scientists had written. Of 301 scientists, 206 (68%) responded: between them, they had authored a total of 230 articles. The eight originality types were rated by 84% of the scientists, and an originality type was assigned to 209 of the 230 articles: the most frequent type was new hypothesis/previously-reported methods/new results. To see if scientific journals might vary in the type of originality they prefer, the articles were divided into two equal groups, by the age of the journals publishing them: younger (0-29 years, n = 106) or older (30-185 years, n = 103). The distribution of originality types was virtually identical for the two groups. The results of this study indicate that the typology merits further study as a means of investigating or evaluating scientific originality.

Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review

This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and resolve efficiently disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. The framework is called a scientific dialectical brief. In this framework, differences among authors and reviewers are formatted into specific assertions and the support each party provides for its position. A literature review suggests that scientists use five main types of support; empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings, and status. It is suggested that the scientific dialectical brief format can streamline the review process by facilitating rapid differentiation between stronger and weaker support, so that valuable time can be focused on the better-substantiated claims. The paper concludes with some suggestions for implementation.