Role Of Peer Review Research Articles

The role of peer review in the pursuit of commercial fusion energy

The path to demonstrate how fusion energy can be used to generate net electricity is undergoing an important transition, shifting from relying almost exclusively on public funding to also being supported by a diverse set of private companies. This article discusses the motivations and processes by which peer review, a mainstay of publicly funded fusion science, translates to the research and development activities of private fusion companies. The perspective is from a team which has experienced this evolution first-hand, having transitioned from publicly funded fusion projects to working on the high-field tokamak path, supported or employed by Commonwealth Fusion Systems. We believe the continuation of peer review to be critical to the advancement of industry-led fusion science, but also acknowledge where it needs to have restrictions due to pursuit of some fusion technology that may need to remain proprietary. The discussion is expected to be generally applicable to any privately funded fusion endeavor, but necessarily draws upon the experience gained from developing the science, engineering, and technology basis for the SPARC tokamak and the planning for its future operation.

Role of Peer Review in Surgical Research

No Abstract

On the Role of Peer Review in the Teaching of Second Language Writing

After process writing entered the field of second language writing instruction, peer review, which is one of the central elements of the review and revision stages, has received increasing attention and research. Peer review is a very important factor in process writing, enriching the teaching activities of second language writing instruction and playing an indispensable role in second language writing. Peer review can help teachers provide better diagnostic feedback, which not only reflects teachers’ teaching results and students’ own understanding of the target language, but also has a significant impact on learners’ learning efficiency and motivation, and can positively influence learners’ writing habits. However, peer review also has its shortcomings and limitations that need to be noted, such as: (1) students tend to ignore the meaningful aspects of their peers’ writing; (2) discussions in peer assessment become “idle chatter”; (3) students are reluctant to make suggestions for their peers under the principle of “saving face”. (3) students are not willing to make suggestions for their peers. This paper discuss the benefits of peer review in second language writing teaching from the perspective of two different subjects, students and teachers, and conclude that peer review can encourage students to revise their work, enhance their sense of readership, strengthen their communicative competence, and reduce their learning anxiety; it can also help teachers to reduce their burden and solve their teaching problems.

Role of peer review in the evaluation of research in Italy. Some remarks on the evaluation of PRINs

This contribution proposes some remarks on the evaluation and financing mechanisms of PRINs – Progetti di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale, promoted in Italy by the MUR - Ministry of University and Research, in the context of the critical issues and evolution prospects of peer review, of which a summary state of the art is presented. Starting from the partial and incomplete data made available on the MUR website dedicated to PRINs, are listed and examined the projects financed for the current disciplinary sector M-STO/08 (Archival Science, Bibliography and Librarianship), in the years between 1996 and 2020, and those included in other disciplinary areas that have as their subject matters related to the contents of the academic field M-STO/08.

Process of providing scientific evidence: The role of peer review and the motivation of reviewers

Process of providing scientific evidence: The role of peer review and the motivation of reviewers

Evaluating the Evaluators in Russia: When Academic Citizenship Fails

We examined the role of peer review in the quality assurance system developed for the regulation of higher education institutions in Russia. Given their negative attitude towards the state’s attempts to increase control over universities, how can the participation of academics in regulatory activity be explained? This essay applies resource allocation theory to suggest that engagement in academic service might depend on an individual’s performance of their core professional task: research. Results indicate that Russian academics who perform relatively poorly with respect to publications and citations in selective journals are more likely to engage in academic citizenship in the form of inspections.

Peer reviewing in the contemporary academic communications

The paper is devoted to substantiating the requirements that make sense to present to the journal articles manuscripts’ peer reviews in order to reduce the reviewers’ efforts without reducing the reviews quality. For this, the role of peer review in scientific communication is characterized, and the changes that have occurred in scientific communication over the past two decades are analyzed, including the emergence of open access journals and its consequences: mega-journals and predatory journals. An assessment of the new model of peer review in mega-journals is given, which reduces the efforts of reviewers, but also reduces the level of trust in the articles published in them. The twofold function of peer reviewing is analyzed: social, which resolves the problem to support the scientific knowledge growth, and facilitates the scientists’ orientation in journal publications, and private, which increases the publishers’ competitive advantages in the scientific publications market. It is proposed to separate these functions, leaving traditionally voluntary reviews only for social function, and transferring private to the category of fee-based services: the journal’s editor(publisher) can order to reviewer same recommendation for author on paper’s improving. A description of the new requirements for peer reviews is given, in which only the scientific nature of the article, the author’s professional competence, and the novelty of the research results obtained should be analyzed.

Peer review under the ethical lens: possible questions

The pressure to publish and get cited along with the extensive use of citation metrics in individual career promotion, research funding and university ranking have radically changed the research ecosystem during the last few decades, favoring the rise of predatory journals. This phenomenon has shaken the very backbone of the system, represented by the peer review process. The present article builds up upon the recommendation for reviewers, including the ethical ones, and articles expressing some concerns related to the peer review in order not to answer, but merely ask several questions that could serve as the start point for a reform of the system. Overall, the role of peer review is not at stakes, but its intricate mechanisms need to adapt to the challenges of the new environment.

Open science and evaluation

The aim of this contribution is to investigate how open science can influence/support research evaluation and whether and how open science practice can be evaluated in its effort to avoid what is predicted by Goodhart's law (When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure). The enterprise is not simple, as it focus on giving up points of reference that have been part of common practice of hard sciences for years while we are now trying to implement them in humanities and social sciences. We must accept that the internet has changed the way science is produced, disseminated, validated and evaluated and has multiplied its channels of communication. For this reason the traditional bibliometric indicators, which refer to articles published in peer reviewed journals, preferably in English, as the only viable publication channel, become inapplicable. In an open environment, the role of peer review, in particular the idea of blind (single or double) peer review must also radically change.

Patterns and practices in fisheries assessment peer review systems

With wild-capture fisheries, important globally as a source of food and livelihood, and facing chronic overfishing, development of the best available science can reduce scientific uncertainty and improve the quality of science-based advice and the credibility to stakeholders of the management decisions based on that science. Fish stock assessments are complex scientific analyses used to provide critical, science-based advice for decision-making, such as quota setting. Building on findings from a 2017 American Fisheries Society (AFS) symposium, this paper describes and compares different national, multilateral, and private peer review systems to assess peer review characteristics and the role of peer review in the development of best available science and science-based advice. There is considerable diversity in how peer review systems are organized in terms of how reviewers are selected, use of internal or external expertise, the level of independence required of reviewers, and the steps in the assessment process at which peer review is conducted. Peer review systems face a number of challenges, including limited funding, a small pool of available expertise and the often highly technical nature of reviews, and trade-offs related to competing demands such as thoroughness versus timeliness, independent technical expertise versus local knowledge, and efficiency versus transparency, among others. The prevalence of peer review systems underscores the importance of objective, peer-reviewed, scientific-based advice across fishery management systems. The diversity of approaches to peer review demonstrates that there is no one ideal way to implement peer review, and there are tradeoffs inherent in designing a peer-review system.

From peer review to collaborative peer enquiry: Action research for school improvement and leadership development

School peer reviews are increasingly part of the evaluation and school improvement landscape for school leaders and teachers in a number of countries. This article describes the growth of peer review, particularly in England, and its emergence elsewhere (for example, Australia, across Europe and in Chile). While these approaches provide a useful form of professional and moral accountability, this article identifies ways in which they could go further to empower practitioners through the use of an enquiry approach, combining formal academic knowledge with practitioner knowledge and school-based data. The term collaborative peer enquiry (CPE) is suggested as a way to explore this potential. The article sets out a typology of action research as a form of professional learning (type 1), practical philosophy (type 2) or as a form of critical social science (type 3). Four examples are given of different peer review models, two of them CPE approaches, and these are analysed using the above typology. A distinction is made between some peer review models that mimic external inspections and err towards self-policing, and others that encourage open enquiry and learning. In particular, the CPE models show the potential as forms of type 2 and type 3 action research. The role of peer review and CPE in the accountability system, in leadership development, and challenges for these models are explored in the discussion.

A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors' perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Implementing and evaluating editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines is essential to improve the transparency of published research. This survey aims to cast light on the barriers and facilitators that can be expected when implementing diverse interventions, as well as on the potential impact of these interventions.

A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation of different interventions and the potential effectiveness of these at improving adherence to reporting guidelines, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and were concerned that the quality of peer review could be compromised. Reviewers are generally not expected to focus on reporting issues but on providing an expert view on the importance, novelty, and relevance of the manuscript. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to take action to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Biomedical journal editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals would be the most effective, yet resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that peer reviewers should not be asked to check RGs. Future evaluations of interventions can take into account the barriers, facilitators, and incentives described in this survey.

A survey exploring biomedical editors’ perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors’ perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process. Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals

BackgroundAlthough peer reviewers play a key role in the manuscript review process, their roles and tasks are poorly defined. Clarity around this issue is important as it may influence the quality of peer reviewer reports. This scoping review explored the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals.MethodsComprehensive literature searches were conducted in Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from inception up to May 2017. There were no date and language restrictions. We also searched for grey literature. Studies with statements mentioning roles, tasks and competencies pertaining to the role of peer reviewers in biomedical journals were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and selection. Relevant statements were extracted, collated and classified into themes.ResultsAfter screening 2763 citations and 600 full-text papers, 209 articles and 13 grey literature sources were included. A total of 1426 statements related to roles were extracted, resulting in 76 unique statements. These were grouped into 13 emergent themes: proficient experts in their field (3 items), dutiful/altruistic towards scientific community (7 items), familiar with journal (2 items), unbiased and ethical professionals (18 items), self-critical professionals (4 items), reliable professionals (7 items), skilled critics (15 items), respectful communicators (6 items), gatekeepers (2 items), educators (2 items), advocates for author/editor/reader (3 items) and advisors to editors (2 items). Roles that do not fall within the remit of peer reviewers were also identified (5 items).We also extracted 2026 statements related to peer reviewers’ tasks, resulting in 73 unique statements. These were grouped under six themes: organisation and approach to reviewing (10 items), make general comments (10 items), assess and address content for each section of the manuscript (36 items), address ethical aspects (5 items), assess manuscript presentation (8 items) and provide recommendations (4 items).ConclusionsPeer reviewers are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks for biomedical journals. These warrant further discussion and clarification in order not to overburden these key actors.

Quality, Resistance & Community

This is the editorial for the eleventh edition of Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal, published autumn 2018. This issue includes a number of interviews with key figures, two pieces considering issues around Narrating, Nation, Sovereignty and Territory as well as a critical reflection on a community art scholarship educational intervention. This editorial takes a brief look at the role of peer reviewers in supporting the work of Exchanges, and makes a call for more readers of the title to register their interest in supporting this activity. It concludes with acknowledgement and a call for submissions for the next and subsequent volumes of the title.

The role of peer review in identity development for engineering education researchers

ABSTRACTPeer review has been the focus of an ongoing study at a series of recent annual conferences of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE). A further development of this study has been to explore the perspective/s of the authors of these conference papers and the impact that peer review can have on their development as researchers. This paper uses the identity-trajectory framework to illustrate relationships between peer review and academic identity construction for engineering education authors in the AAEE community. Participants’ responses illustrate how various aspects of responding to reviews and writing reviews for other authors, contribute to the development of the networking and intellectual strands of their academic identity as engineering education researchers. We suggest that members of the global engineering education community should be mindful of how they write their peer reviews of conference papers to ensure the opportunity to constructively contribute to their peers’ successful transition into this different research paradigm is not missed.

Do peer review models affect clinicians\u2019 trust in journals? A survey of junior doctors

BackgroundThe aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making.MethodsA 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database.ResultsThe response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked. The NEJM, Lancet and The BMJ were deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training.ConclusionsJunior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process.

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics

ABSTRACTFor the past three decades, peer review practices have received much attention in the literature. But although this literature covers many research fields, only one previous systematic study has been devoted to the practice of peer review in mathematics, namely a study by Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove from 2010. This lack of attention may be due to a view that peer review in mathematics is more reliable, and therefore less interesting as an object of study, than peer review in other fields. In fact, Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove argue that peer review in mathematics is relatively reliable. At the same time, peer review in mathematics differs from peer review in most, if not all, other fields in that papers submitted to mathematical journals are usually only reviewed by a single referee. Furthermore, recent empirical studies indicate that the referees do not check the papers line by line. I argue that, in spite of this, mathematical practice in general and refereeing practices in particular are such that the common practice of mathematical journals of using just one referee is justified from the point of view of proof validity assessment. The argument is based on interviews I conducted with seven mathematicians.