≡ Menu

Peering at Peer Review

We’re kicking off Peer Review Week 2016 with a look at what our journals have to say about the topic. Read the articles below for free all throughout Peer Review Week until September 26th!

  1. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials [Open Access] Jigisha Patel – BMC Medicine: Specialization, training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation in peer review, coupled with a quality assurance symbol for the lay person, could address some of the current limitations of peer review for randomized controlled trials.
  2. Promoting F.A.I.T.H. in Peer Review: Five Core Attributes of Effective Peer Review Leigh Turner- Journal of Academic EthicsThis paper considers what authors, editors, reviewers, and readers ought to expect from the peer review process. Five core elements of peer review are identified
  3. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review Daniel M. Herron- Surgical EndoscopyThe peer review process is the gold standard by which academic manuscripts are vetted for publication. However, some investigators have raised concerns regarding its unopposed supremacy, including lack of expediency, susceptibility to editorial bias and statistical limitation due to the small number of reviewers used. In this study, a computer model was created to compare the traditional peer-review process to that of post-publication reader review.
  4. Peer review under review: room for improvement?  E. E. van der Wall – Netherlands Heart Journal: The peer review process is a central part of medicine and has become a touchstone of modern evaluation of scientific quality.  A frequent claim is that the process is insufficiently objective and that it is inconsistent in its capacity to assess manuscript quality.
  5. Peer reviewers learn from giving comments Young Hoan Cho, Kwangsu Cho – Instructional ScienceResearch on peer reviewing has revealed that comments received from peer reviewers are helpful when it comes to making revisions in an individual’s writing, but the role of providing comments to peer writers has been little explored despite the potential value of such research. In this study, how student reviewers learn by reviewing peer drafts in the context of reciprocal peer reviewing is explored.
  6. The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review Guo Freeman, Cassidy R. Sugimoto – Scientometrics: Numerous studies have sought to uncover violations of objectivity and impartiality in peer review; however the notion of reciprocity has been absent in much of this discussion, particularly as it relates to gendered and ethnicized behaviors of peer review. The current study addresses this gap in research. 
  7. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors Susan A. Elmore – Science and Engineering Ethics: A growing body of literature has identified potential problems that can compromise the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review, including inadequate review, inconsistent reviewer reports, reviewer biases, and ethical transgressions by reviewers. This study examines the evidence concerning these problems and discuss proposed reforms, including double-blind and open review.

Featured Image: AJ Cann/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Comment