HOW TO REVIEW A PAPER

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale J. Benos ◽  
Kevin L. Kirk ◽  
John E. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Manuscript Review

Most scientists acquire their training in manuscript review not through instruction but by actually doing it. Formal training in manuscript analysis is rarely, if ever, provided. Editors usually choose reviewers because of expertise in a given subject area and availability. If an individual repeatedly submits bad reviews, it is likely that that person will not be asked to review a manuscript again. Being invited to review a manuscript is an honor, not only because you are being recognized for your eminence in a particular area of research but also because of the responsibility and service you provide to the journal and scientific community. The purpose of this article is to define how best to peer review an article. We will stipulate several principles of peer review and discuss some of the main elements of a good manuscript review, the basic responsibilities of a reviewer, and the rewards and responsibilities that accompany this process. Proper reviewer conduct is essential for making the peer review process valuable and the journal trustworthy.

scholarly journals Reforming Science Publishing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khaled Moustafa
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Publishing Industry ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
The Past ◽  
Open Access Journals

Over the past few years, different changes have been introduced into the science publishing industry. However, important reforms are still required at both the content and form levels. First, the peer review process needs to be open, fair and transparent. Second, author-paid fees in open access journals need to either be removed or reconsidered toward more affordability. Third, the categorization of papers should include all types of scientific contributions that can be of higher interest to the scientific community than many mere quantitative and observable measures, or simply removed from publications. Forth, word counts and reference numbers in online open access journal should be nuanced or replaced by recommended ranges rather than to be a proxy of acceptance or rejection. Finally, all the coauthors of a manuscript should be considered corresponding authors and responsible for their mutual manuscript rather than only one or two.

scholarly journals Editors’ perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e020568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Darko Hren
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Output ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Communication Practices

IntroductionDespite dealing with scientific output and potentially having an impact on the quality of research published, the manuscript peer-review process itself has at times been criticised for being ‘unscientific’. Research indicates that there are social and subjective dimensions of the peer-review process that contribute to this perception, including how key stakeholders—namely authors, editors and peer reviewers—communicate. In particular, it has been suggested that the expected roles and tasks of stakeholders need to be more clearly defined and communicated if the manuscript review process is to be improved. Disentangling current communication practices, and outlining the specific roles and tasks of the main actors, might be a first step towards establishing the design of interventions that counterbalance social influences on the peer-review process.The purpose of this article is to present a methodological design for a qualitative study exploring the communication practices within the manuscript review process of biomedical journals from the journal editors’ point of view.Methods and analysisSemi-structured interviews will be carried out with editors of biomedical journals between October 2017 and February 2018. A heterogeneous sample of participants representing a wide range of biomedical journals will be sought through purposive maximum variation sampling, drawing from a professional network of contacts, publishers, conference participants and snowballing.Interviews will be thematically analysed following the method outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data analysis software NVivo V.11 will be used to aid data management and analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis research project was evaluated and approved by the University of Split, Medical School Ethics Committee (2181-198-03-04-17-0029) in May 2017. Findings will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations during conferences.

scholarly journals Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Severin ◽  
Joanna Chataway
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Topic Guide ◽  
Stakeholder Expectations ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Decision Making Tool

Background: Depending upon their relationship with the process, stakeholders might have diverging or even conflicting expectations about the functions that peer review should fulfil. We aimed to explore how different stakeholder groups across academic disciplines perceive peer review and what they expect from it. Methods: We conducted qualitative focus group workshops with early-, mid- and senior career scholars, reviewers, editors and publishers. We recruited participants following a purposive maximum variation sampling approach and used a semi-structured topic guide to moderate discussions. To identify purposes of peer review, we conducted a thematic analysis. Results: Stakeholders expected peer review (i) to assess the contributions of a manuscript, (ii) to conduct quality control, (iii) to improve manuscripts, (iv) to assess the suitability of manuscripts for a journals and its readership, (v) to provide a decision-making tool for editors, (vi) to provide feedback by peers, (vii) to curate a community and (viii) to provide a seal of accreditation for published articles. Stakeholder groups with different roles and tasks in the peer review process differed in their understanding of and the value they attached to different functions of peer review. Some stakeholder expectations are contradictory, revealing a tension between formative functions and summative functions of peer review. Conclusions: Stakeholder expectations towards peer review are profoundly shaped by how stakeholders perceive their own roles both in relation to the peer review process and within their scientific community.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 890 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science has been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. The review processes were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind/Double-blind/Triple-blind/Open/Other (please describe) Double-blind: All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and the ethics of scientific writing including a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism were rejected directly. The initial technical criteria check by the editors. The accepted papers came through peer review process by two professional experts in the related subject area. After the peer review process was complete, the editors decide that the papers will be accepted for publication. • Conference submission management system: Email 2nd International Conference on Fisheries and Marine submission on https://unkhair.ac.id/ • Number of submissions received: 150 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: [email protected] Dr. Najamuddin Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Khairun University, Indonesia

Scientific Paper Peer-Reviewing System With Blockchain, IPFS, and Smart Contract

2019 ◽  
pp. 189-221
Author(s):  
Shantanu Kumar Rahut ◽  
Razwan Ahmed Tanvir ◽  
Sharfi Rahman ◽  
Shamim Akhter
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Relevant Field

In general, peer reviewing is known as an inspection of a work that is completed by one or more qualified people from the same profession and from the relevant field to make the work more error-free, readable, presentable, and adjustable according to the pre-published requirements and also considered as the primary metric for publishing a research paper, accepting research grants, or selecting award nominees. However, many recent publications are pointing to the biasness and mistreatment in the peer-review process. Thus, the scientific community is involved to generate ideas to advance the reviewing process including standardizing procedures and protocols, blind and electronic reviewing, rigorous methods in reviewer selection, rewarding reviewers, providing detailed feedback or checklist to reviewers, etc. In this chapter, the authors propose a decentralized and anonymous scientific peer-reviewing system using blockchain technology. This system will integrate all the above concern issues and eliminate the bias or trust issues interconnected with the peer-reviewing process.

Scientific Paper Peer-Reviewing System With Blockchain, IPFS, and Smart Contract

2021 ◽  
pp. 1029-1060
Author(s):  
Shantanu Kumar Rahut ◽  
Razwan Ahmed Tanvir ◽  
Sharfi Rahman ◽  
Shamim Akhter
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Research Grants ◽  
Blockchain Technology ◽  
Smart Contract ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Relevant Field

In general, peer reviewing is known as an inspection of a work that is completed by one or more qualified people from the same profession and from the relevant field to make the work more error-free, readable, presentable, and adjustable according to the pre-published requirements and also considered as the primary metric for publishing a research paper, accepting research grants, or selecting award nominees. However, many recent publications are pointing to the biasness and mistreatment in the peer-review process. Thus, the scientific community is involved to generate ideas to advance the reviewing process including standardizing procedures and protocols, blind and electronic reviewing, rigorous methods in reviewer selection, rewarding reviewers, providing detailed feedback or checklist to reviewers, etc. In this chapter, the authors propose a decentralized and anonymous scientific peer-reviewing system using blockchain technology. This system will integrate all the above concern issues and eliminate the bias or trust issues interconnected with the peer-reviewing process.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ketevan Glonti ◽  
Daniel Cauchi ◽  
Erik Cobo ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
David Moher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Manuscript Review ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Peer Reviewers

IntroductionThe primary functions of peer reviewers are poorly defined. Thus far no body of literature has systematically identified the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. A clear establishment of these can lead to improvements in the peer review process. The purpose of this scoping review is to determine what is known on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers.MethodsWe will use the methodological framework first proposed by Arksey and O’Malley and subsequently adapted by Levacet aland the Joanna Briggs Institute. The scoping review will include all study designs, as well as editorials, commentaries and grey literature. The following eight electronic databases will be searched (from inception to May 2017): Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers will use inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the ‘Population–Concept–Context’ framework to independently screen titles and abstracts of articles considered for inclusion. Full-text screening of relevant eligible articles will also be carried out by two reviewers. The search strategy for grey literature will include searching in websites of existing networks, biomedical journal publishers and organisations that offer resources for peer reviewers. In addition we will review journal guidelines to peer reviewers on how to perform the manuscript review. Journals will be selected using the 2016 journal impact factor. We will identify and assess the top five, middle five and lowest-ranking five journals across all medical specialties.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already collected and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in peer review in biomedical research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document