A Systematic Review of Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts

Abstract

Background The usefulness of peer review has been expressed as a method to improve the quality of published work. However, there has been a lack of systematic reviews to date to highlight the essential themes of the peer-review process. Methods We performed a search of the English language literature published prior to October 2011 using PubMed to identify articles regarding peer review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori. Data were extracted and then analyzed for the prevalence of peer-review themes contained within the literature. Results Of the 941 articles found during our original literature search, 37 were selected for review. The majority were commentary/editorial articles. The themes in our search included the structure and process of the peer-review system, the criteria for papers, ethics, and the different forms of the peer-review process. Conclusions The criteria for submission will vary, but our systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of what reviewers expect from authors. Our systematic review also highlighted ethical considerations for both authors and reviewers during the peer-review process. Although the topic of peer review is expansive and its process may vary from journal to journal, the understanding of the themes outlined in this paper will help authors recognize how to write a more successful paper. Also, more research must be carried out to establish the efficacy of the different styles of peer review, and it would be presumptuous to draw conclusions until further research is established.

Trends in High Nature Value farmland studies: A systematic review

“…In order to reach this goal, a systematic review involving a broad search of scientific articles was conducted. The analysis was focused only on peer-reviewed articles, considering that the scientific peer-review process is important for insuring the quality of published research (Larson & Chung 2012). More specifically, temporal trends, geographical distribution of studies, types of articles, main disciplines, taxa of focus in articles and type of metrics used to evaluate biodiversity were investigated.…”

Doing peer review and receiving feedback: impact on scientific literacy and writing skills

“…In conclusion, peer review is an effective teaching/ learning approach for improving undergraduate Human Physiology majors' knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding science and scientific writing. peer review; scientific writing; science literacy; student perceptions; human physiology PEER REVIEW is the process by which research findings are evaluated for quality, significance, and originality by experts in the field (3,5,29,41,44). It is vital to the practice and progress of science (2,3,26,40,51); however, it is not without well-documented flaws (3, 6).…”

“…PEER REVIEW is the process by which research findings are evaluated for quality, significance, and originality by experts in the field (3,5,29,41,44). It is vital to the practice and progress of science (2,3,26,40,51); however, it is not without well-documented flaws (3,6).…”

How to review a scientific paper

“…In this paper, I offer some guidelines on how to review a scientific manuscript; my perspective is based on my learning of this role through my over 30 years experience as an author, reviewer, and editor. While instructional resources about the review process are sparse, the following articles, including a resource of this Journal (Elsevier, 2014), are useful (Allen, 2013;Benos et al, 2003;Black et al, 1998;Hoppin, 2002;Larson and Chung, 2012;Onitilo et al, 2014;Provenzale and Stanley, 2005;Szekely et al, 2014;Twaij et al, 2014;Vintzileos and Ananth, 2010).…”