scholarly journals Little evidence to support the use of editorial peer review to ensure quality of published research

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Richards
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Published Research

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for disinterested reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Golden Standard ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the golden standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to misbehavior by reviewers, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for disinterested reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Standardising Peer Review in Paleontology journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Publishing Process ◽  
Review Articles ◽  
Quality Threshold ◽  
Published Research

The purpose of this operational checklist serves one primary purpose: For an article to 'pass' peer review, articles must satisfy a specific quality threshold based on standardised guidelines. Thus, the quality of the peer review process is simultaneously ensured through an open and technical standardisation process. This should be of interest to all stakeholders engaged in the publishing process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publishers themselves, who all have a duty to uphold the integrity of the published research record. While it might initially increase the bureaucracy involved in publishing, ultimately it should save time and effort as it becomes more widely established as an embedded scholarly norm, with integrity a formative part of peer review culture.

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
TO Jefferson ◽  
P Alderson ◽  
F Davidoff ◽  
E Wager
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Of Reports

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Logistics in 2020

Logistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Logistics maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Brain Sciences in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Brain Sciences

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Brain Sciences maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document