Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.
Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jacalyn
J
Kelly
Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tara
T
Sadeghieh
Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy.
Khosrow
K
Adeli
journal; manuscript; open access; peer review; publication
Health Educ Behav. 2012 Feb;39(1):3-7
22301900
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):240-2
9676668
JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2784-6
12038911
Physiologist. 2014 Mar;57(2):88-91
24937923
Science. 2013 Oct 4;342(6154):60-5
24092725
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Oct 15;166(8):1019-23
12379542
Blood Transfus. 2013 Apr;11(2):217-26
23356975
Trends Biotechnol. 2002 Aug;20(8):357-8
12127284
Open Med. 2007 Apr 14;1(1):e49-51
20101291
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1371-6
2304216
Oral Oncol. 2005 Feb;41(2):135-41
15695114