Technically speaking, an editorial review is the first and third stage of review of manuscripts submitted by researchers to scholarly journals, and peer review is, as a rule, the second stage of this process. Peer review is different, because, instead of a faculty reading carefully the arguments and research findings that form a scholarly article of a researcher, and giving their opinion as to its scientific quality, they will today outsource it to usually, two anonymous peer reviewers.
Peer review is complementary to editorial review, because today, editorial review screens the overall compatibility of the article with the editorial guidelines of the scholarly journal in question. In both cases, a preliminary editorial review generally aims at identifying whether the manuscript:. The criteria that peer reviewers use are quite common for any discipline: the choice of topic, the originality of the principal argument, the novelty of empirical data, coherent approach, method, and the structure of the paper, and the like.
However, there are a few nuances here, too. At this—second—stage of scholarly review, peer reviewers assess much more thoroughly than the journal editors at the previous stage whether the submission provides clear scientific contribution and implications for the scientific area in question.
Also, most scholarly journals in any scientific discipline classify article submissions into at least three general categories:. Note that in most cases, the authors must carry out at least some revisions. After revisions, except when the article was accepted in its current form, the journal editors then send the revised manuscript back to the same peer reviewers.
However, a very average rate of refusal to peer review the original manuscripts in any discipline is as high as 50 per cent. Indeed, there is only so much peer-reviewing that one can do, as peer reviewers are commonly unpaid in the case of most scientific journals, and surely, in the most reputed ones.
To sum up, both the first stage preliminary editorial review or screening and second stage peer review are essential. But the most critical test for a manuscript to pass is, of course, peer review. If peer reviewers recommended accepting the manuscript in its current form, accepting with minor revisions, or at least revising and resubmitting it, this means that generally, the submission passed the most challenging stage successfully.
The abstract and introduction of a manuscript are crucial, as they make the first fundamental impression and pave the groundwork for the analysis, and hence, also for peer review. When a scholarly work is submitted to a scientific journal, it first undergoes a preliminary check known as a desk review. The editor decides if the manuscript should be sent for peer review or be immediately rejected. The next step is to select experts from the same field who are qualified and able to review the work impartially.
Ideally the work is evaluated by multiple experts. The primary goals of a peer review are to determine whether a scholarly work falls within the journal's scope, to check whether the research topic has been clearly formulated, and to decide if a suitable approach has been taken to address the scientific issues involved. The reviewer also examines the methodology to determine whether the author's results can be reproduced, and he or she assesses the novelty and originality of the research findings.
If a work involves patients or animals, then the peer review will also cover ethical aspects. Finally, the reviewer will also rate the 'readability' of the work, assessing how logically the argument has been constructed and whether the conclusions are well-founded.
In addition, the author of the work will generally receive useful advice on how to improve their work. Peer reviewers normally provide their assessment in the form of a questionnaire which they return to the editor. This forms the basis for deciding whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Submissions with serious failings will be rejected, though they can be re-submitted once they have been thoroughly revised.
If a work is rejected, this does not necessarily mean it is of poor quality. A paper may also be rejected because it doesn't fall within the journal's area of specialisation or because it doesn't meet the high standards of novelty and originality required by the journal in question.
Some prestigious journals reject over 90 percent of papers submitted to them, while the rejection rate across all scientific journals is somewhere in the region of 50 percent.
Another reason a paper may be rejected is that the reviewers do not agree that the approach taken by the author is innovative. There are also some journals which take a more relaxed stance in regard to originality and focus more on the extent to which the author has followed correct scientific procedures.
It is therefore common for authors to submit their paper to a different journal after receiving a rejection. Reviewers are generally not paid for their time since peer review is simply considered to be part of the self-regulatory nature of the world of science and research. Some publishers 'reward' their reviewers by granting them free access to their archives for limited periods of time.
The term peer review actually encompasses a number of different approaches, the most common of which are the following:. There are also considerable differences in the level of detail with which papers are evaluated.
For example, some journals make additional use of anti-plagiarism software, organise separate reviews of the author's methods and statistics, or examine the submitted illustrations to detect whether they have been manipulated.
There is also an increasing number of journals which focus on scientific software or research datasets, and the peer review process has been adapted to fit these contexts, too. Peer review is also used by conference organisers to select which contributions to include in their programme.
And funding bodies even use peer review methods to assess the eligibility of research proposals for funding. It is important to be timely out of respect for both the journal and the author;. Reviewers who suggest changes that are too sweeping, setting the bar too high for the original paper, make it difficult for authors to resolve issues.
In this case, consider rejecting the manuscript as an option;. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the manuscript structure, the quality of data sources, and the methods used for investigation, on the logical flow of argument, and on the validity of the conclusions drawn. Although reviewers do not make any economic profit out of the peer-review process, other benefits should be considered, such as increasing the network of researchers in their field of study, increasing their chances of collaborative participation in future multicenter studies, increasing their knowledge by keeping up-to-date in their field of research, and improving techniques and forms of scientific writing, among others.
The peer-review process is a key element in the development of science and its practical applicability. However, it is not the exclusive responsibility of editors and may reflect the scientific maturity of a country. Rooyen S. The evaluation of peer-review quality. Learned Publishing. Fox CW.
0コメント