Peer review

Abstract

The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals. This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

The peer review process: a primer forJNISreaders

“…JNIS , like many journals, could not function in its current format without it. It has served the medical/scientific community well for over 100 years 6–8 13 16. For a process that is so fundamental to our specialty and academic activities, however, it is sobering to think how much is assumed and how little we actually know about the biases and limitations inherent to peer review.…”

“…Impartiality in this context is the ability for any reviewer to interpret and apply evaluative criteria consistently for any given manuscript 6–8 10–14 16. Peer review, however, can be difficult to study systematically, as the process is typically subjective and secretive 22…”

Expediting Peer Review: Just Say No

“…Reviewers inform the editor whether the paper reports relevant new information, has valid data and is readable. 1,2 Admittedly, the process is imperfect, and occasionally a deserving paper is rejected or a badly fl awed paper is accepted. However, in most cases, papers are improved in response to peer review, even those that are rejected and ultimately published in another journal.…”

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).…”