Olson defined peer review as “the assessment by experts of material submitted for publication.” It generally refers to the process by which a scientific paper submitted for publication is reviewed by experts in the field, to assess its merit and provide constructive feedback.
How does the peer review process work?
After a paper is submitted and the editor has screened the manuscript, the editor will need to, often manually, identify a group of scholars who have the right expertise to provide critical commentary on the manuscript. Upon being invited, prospective reviewers reserve the right to accept or decline to review the manuscript.
These scholars, often called peer reviewers, then evaluate the paper for its scientific merit, methodology, and relevance to the field. They provide feedback and suggestions for improvement, and their recommendations guide the editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject the paper, or to ask for additional revisions.
Once the reviewers are done with their evaluation, they send their feedback to the editor, who then passes the feedback on to the authors. If the comments indicate that the paper is likely to be accepted upon revisions, the authors are then expected to address these comments or justify why they haven’t been addressed, before re-submitting their manuscript. The paper may go through multiple rounds of review before it is finally accepted for publication.
Why is peer review important?
Peer review is a critical component of the scientific process. It ensures that the research presented in academic manuscripts is of high quality and can be trusted. It acts as a form of quality control, ensuring that the research methodology is sound and the conclusions drawn are supported by the data.
Furthermore, peer review provides a platform for academic dialogue. Reviewers may offer new perspectives or highlight potential weaknesses in the study that the authors may not have considered. This exchange can lead to the improvement and refinement of the research, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
The challenges of peer review
While peer review is essential in maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge, it is not without its own set of challenges. In this section, we will discuss some of the most common issues faced in the peer review process and potential solutions to address them.
Bias in peer review
The peer review process faces the challenge of potential bias. Reviewers might have personal or professional connections with the authors or have preconceived notions about the subject matter. These factors can influence their review, leading to overly favourable or critical evaluations. To mitigate this, it is crucial to ensure that the review process is as blind and impartial as possible. Some journals employ double-blind or even triple-blind review methods, where both the reviewer and the author are anonymous to each other, or even to the editor.
Time and effort
Another challenge is the significant time and effort required for a thorough review. The process of reviewing a paper can be lengthy and requires a meticulous and detailed approach. Academics often undertake this work in addition to their other commitments, such as teaching and their own research, often without any compensation or recognition. This can lead to rushed reviews or difficulty in finding willing and able reviewers. A potential solution could be to offer some form of compensation or incentives for reviewers, or to recognize their contributions more formally.
Delays in publication
The peer review process can also be slow, causing delays in the publication of important findings. This can impede timely access to new knowledge, particularly in fast-moving fields or in times of crisis when rapid dissemination of research findings is essential.
Final thoughts
Despite its challenges, peer review remains a cornerstone of the scientific process. It serves as a check and balance, ensuring that the research we read and build upon is reliable and robust. While improvements can be made, the importance of peer review in maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge cannot be overstated.
Sources
- Kassirer, Jerome P., and Edward W. Campion. “Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable.” Jama 272.2 (1994): 96-97.
- Candal-Pedreira, C., Rey-Brandariz, J., Varela-Lema, L., Pérez-Ríos, M., & Ruano-Ravina, A. (2023). Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals. Anales de Pediatría (English Edition), 99(1), 54-59.
- George, T. (2023, June 22). What is peer review? | Types & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/
- Olson, Carin M. “Peer review of the biomedical literature.” The American journal of emergency medicine 8.4 (1990): 356-358.