Peer review (Joost van Wijchen) - Contagious precarity: A collective biographical analysis of early-career physiotherapist academics’ experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic

Peer review in scholarly communication and scientific publishing, in one form or another, has always been regarded as crucial to the reputation and reliability of scientific research. In the growing interest of scholarly research and publication, this paper tries to discuss about peer review process and its different types to communicate the early career researchers and academics.This paper has used the published and unpublished documents for information collection. It reveals that peer review places the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of scientific publishing. It is the system used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. Therefore, it concludes that peer review is used to advancing and testing scientific knowledgeas a quality control mechanism forscientists, publishers and the public.

Download Full-text

Looking inside the world of peer review: Implications for graduate student writers

Language Teaching ◽

10.1017/s0261444818000150 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 52 (3) ◽

pp. 331-342 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Brian Paltridge

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Graduate Student ◽

Early Career ◽

Academic Journals ◽

Student Writers ◽

Academic Appointment ◽

The World ◽

The Future ◽

Research Students

Getting published in academic journals is increasingly important for research students in terms of gaining employment when they complete their studies and, in the future, for tenure and promotion applications once they have obtained an academic appointment. In this paper, I discuss some of the challenges that student (and early career) writers face when submitting articles to academic journals and, in particular, how they might better understand and respond to the reports they receive on their work.

Download Full-text

Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anthony Chauvin ◽

Philippe Ravaud ◽

David Moher ◽

David Schriger ◽

Sally Hopewell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Early Career ◽

Diagnostic Study ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Link Type ◽

The Mean

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82–89] versus 20% [16–24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44–77] versus 11% [3–26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57–65] versus 77% [74–81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67–86] versus 98% [92–100]. Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Download Full-text

Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

10.1101/2020.01.24.918995 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Thomas Klebel ◽

Stefan Reichmann ◽

Jessica Polka ◽

Gary McDowell ◽

Naomi Penfold ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Early Career ◽

Academic Journals ◽

Research Practices ◽

Open Research ◽

Clear Information

AbstractClear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of Open Peer Review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.

Download Full-text

Perspectives for early-career researchers on plagiarism and scientific integrity

FACETS ◽

10.1139/facets-2019-0031 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 17-25

Author(s):

Robert G. Young ◽

T. Fatima Mitterboeck

Keyword(s):

Graduate Students ◽

Intellectual Property ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Scientific Investigation ◽

Early Career ◽

Scientific Integrity ◽

Predatory Journals ◽

Early Career Researchers

Lapses in scientific integrity, such as plagiarism, persist in the scientific realm. To be successful and contributory, early-career researchers (ECRs), including graduate students, need to be able to effectively navigate the literature, peer-review process, and scientific research with integrity. Here we discuss different aspects of scientific integrity related to ECRs. Our discussion centres on the concepts of plagiarism and intellectual property, predatory journals, aspects of peer review, transparency in publishing, and false advanced accreditations. Negative elements within these topics may be especially damaging to ECRs, who may be less familiar with the research landscape. We highlight the need for ECRs to approach scientific investigation cautiously and thoughtfully to promote integrity through critical thinking.

Download Full-text

Early Career Advisory Board: Q&A on career and publishing

The Journal of Cell Biology ◽

10.1083/jcb.201906207 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 218 (9) ◽

pp. 2815-2818

Author(s):

Andrea Marat

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Advisory Board ◽

Early Career ◽

Scientific Publishing ◽

Academic Position

We interviewed our Early Career Advisory Board to learn about their experiences finding their academic position and managing a new laboratory, and their views on peer review and scientific publishing. An excerpted version is presented here and all other responses are found in the supplemental material.

Download Full-text

How to bring peer review ghostwriters out of the dark

Molecular Biology of the Cell ◽

10.1091/mbc.e20-10-0642 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 32 (6) ◽

pp. 461-466

Author(s):

Gary S. McDowell ◽

Caroline A. Niziolek ◽

Rebeccah S. Lijek

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Early Career ◽

Peer Reviews ◽

Early Career Researchers

Early career researchers are frequent and valuable contributors to peer review. Systemic changes that acknowledge this fact would result in ethical co-reviewing, peer reviews of greater quality, and a reduction in peer reviewer burden.

Download Full-text