We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit. If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website.
Thanks in advance for your time. About Elsevier. Set via JS. Home Reviewers What is peer review? The peer review process. To view this embedded content, please enable JavaScript. Types of peer review. Single anonymized review In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. Points to consider regarding single anonymizedreview include: Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions — the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.
Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first. Double anonymized review Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model.
Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status or previous publication history. Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation. Triple anonymized review With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor.
Read more about the experiment More transparent peer review In general transparency is the key to trust in peer review. Article transfer service: peer review cascade. The benefits of full manuscript review cascades are twofold: Reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals. Authors do not need to spend additional time reformatting their manuscript.
By publishing their study findings in medical journals, they enable other scientists to share their developments, test the results, and take the investigation further.
Peer review is a central part of the publication process for medical journals. The medical community considers it to be the best way of ensuring that published research is trustworthy and that any medical treatments that it advocates are safe and effective for people.
In this article, we look at the reasons for peer review and how scientists carry them out, as well as the flaws of the process. Peer review also has other functions. For example, it can guide decisions about grants for medical research funding.
For medical journals, peer review means asking experts from the same field as the authors to help editors decide whether to publish or reject a manuscript by providing a critique of the work. There is no industry standard to dictate the details of a peer review process, but most major medical journals follow guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
COPE also have a large membership among journals. These associations do not set out rules for individual journals to follow, and they regularly remind reviewers to consult journal editors.
In most cases, the authors also do not know who carries out the peer review. Making the review anonymous can help reduce bias. The reviewer will evaluate the paper, not the author. For the sake of transparency, some journals, including the BMJ, have an open system, but they discourage direct contact between reviewers and authors.
Peer review helps editors decide whether to reject a paper outright or to ask for various levels of revision before publication.
Most medical journals ask authors for at least minor changes. All peer reviewers help editors decide whether or not to publish a paper, but each journal may have different criteria. The editor will need to decide whether a paper is relevant, whether they have space for it, and if it might be more suitable for a different journal. The journal editors make the final decision when it comes to publishing a study.
The editorial position and best practices of the journal influence its criteria for publishing a paper. The BMJ , for example, focus on relevant findings that are important to current disease management. The editors of medical journals may publish detailed information about the particular form of review that they use. Scientific findings and discoveries can have far-reaching implications for individuals and society. This is one reason why they undergo a process of quality control known as 'peer review' before they are published.
Peer review involves subjecting the author's scholarly work and research to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field to check its validity and evaluate its suitability for publication. A peer review helps the publisher decide whether a work should be accepted. 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.
0コメント