What is Peer-Review?

Research is the key to unlock the mysteries of the universe. It must be communicated well to the world with whole of its originality. But how do we tell whether a research is falsely fabricated or has been carried out originally? How do we tell whether it been reported well with complete information? Have the important facts been left out intentionally or unintentionally so as others cannot reproduce the same? Has the research question been put correctly? Is the methodology correct scientifically and ethically?  Is the study able to reach its objective? An ultimate check on the quality of research is to be carried out.  Lack of stringent quality check has produced a large junk of the literature. All this must be sorted out to establish good quality science.

 What is Peer Review?

Peer review is the quality control gateway that allows to build trust in published research. It plays a pivotal role in the field of scientific research. The Philosophical transactions of the Royal society is the first journal to formalize peer review process under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg. Research articles undergo review process two times: once before it is published i.e. pre-publication review and once after being published, called post publication review. Pre-publication review involves a group of 2-3 experts deciding and commenting on the quality of research paper. Post-publication review assess the work more widely. 

Types of Peer review

It is very important to have a prior knowledge of the type of review journal supports if you are going to peer review an article. There are four ways in which peer review is carried out and the way implemented is chosen by the journal. 

• Single blind review
• Double blind review
• Triple blind review
• Open review

Single Blind

Single blind review is the most common form of the review. In this form, author does not know the reviewer however reviewer knows the author. This allows reviewers to be more honest regarding the criticality of the comments.   

Also, information about the authors may allow them to grab good understanding of the context of the article in hand. However, this may also lead the reviewers to be biased against particular author. These bias may be based upon the previous conflicts or friendships and lets the reviewers give unnecessary harsh comments. Reviewers may intentionally stretch the review process and replicate the same work for themselves in their lab. 

Double blind

This sort of peer reviewing is common in the fields of social sciences and humanities. In this, both reviewers and authors are unknown to each other. For this title page is kept separated from the manuscript throughout the peer review process. Authors follow many other guidelines such as use of third person to refer the previously published work of author, no use of author affiliations in tables and figures, exclusion of acknowledgement and reference to funding agencies etc. 

This strategy eliminates the chances of bias in part of reviewer based on author’s gender, country of origin, academic status and several such factors.  However it adds additional workloads and responsibility to the editors. It may also lead to harsh comments by the reviewer.  Nowadays, journals are shifting from double blind review to single blind review process. Technological advancement has proved double blind review method ineffective. Reviewers google similar works on internet that may be published as conference proceedings or previously published work in same line of the present work and get to know the authors. This fails the objectives of double blind process and wastes the labor.

Triple Blind 

In this reviewers anonymous and author’s identity is unknown to both editor and reviewers. However this process is very complex and anonymity may not be 100% confirmed. 

Open Review

In this both the author and reviewer know each other and and may lead to more constructive feedback with an efficient review. But the journal releases the names of reviewers only if it accepts the manuscript. Otherwise reviewer’s names remains confidential. Also the process is simpler than blind review process as no extra effort is required by the authors and editor to maintain the anonymity. However the openness of procedure may constraint the reviewers to openly criticize the work of senior colleagues. 

Peer Review Process

Author submits the manuscript of his/her research article in a journal. Editor of the journal acknowledges the manuscript receipt and allots an identification number to the manuscript. The editor goes through cover letter and the highlights of the article. He checks the article for completeness and adherence to journal policies and ethical guidelines. If the manuscript is found unsuitable on editorial grounds, it is rejected without further review. This is called ‘editorial rejection’. Suitable one is sent for full review to the reviewers.  Editor waits for the responses of reviewers and communicates the reviewer’s comments to the authors. Decision may be of 3 kinds: a) Accepted as it is b) Sent for revision c) Rejected. Common misconception is that reviewers ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ the manuscripts. However reviewers only assess, advise and recommend, it is the decision of the editor whether to accept or reject the manuscript.   

A Good Peer Review System

Peer review process maintains a fair dialogue between editor, authors and reviewers. A good peer review system has the following qualities: 

• Timely assessments
• Maintains confidentiality
• Fair and unbiased
• Involve external reviewers

copyright@EasMyPhD 2020