The ups and downs of peer review

Abstract

This article traces the history of peer review of scientific publications, plotting the development of the process from its inception to its present-day application. We discuss the merits of peer review and its weaknesses, both perceived and real, as well as the practicalities of several major proposed changes to the system. It is our hope that readers will gain a better appreciation of the complexities of the process and, when serving as reviewers themselves, will do so in a manner that will enhance the utility of the exercise. We also propose the development of an international on-line training program for accreditation of potential referees.

How to improve the quality of peer reviews? – Three suggestions for system-level changes

“…Scholarly or scientific peer review is the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance and originality by qualified experts who do research in the same field (Brown, 2004;Benos et al, 2007). Peer review is critical in the process of legitimizing new scientific knowledge and assuring its quality.…”

“…Benos et al (2007) summarize its weaknesses such as various biases (status and gender biases and biases because of ideological differences, unconventional ideas, and conflicts of interest), its inability to identify major flaws and scientific misconduct, and delays in the publication process. Yet, scholarly reviewing provides authors with an opportunity to respond to criticism their peers raise before publishing and, consequently, to improve their papers.…”

Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review

“…Department of Orthopaedic Surgery University of Michigan School of Medicine ''Medical Essays and Observations,'' published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731, is considered the first peer reviewed publication [1]. The reasons for solicited peer review were prompted then, as they are now, in response to limited expertise and conflicting opinions.…”

Improving peer review: increasing reviewer participation

“…(Benos et al also supported the addition of more tiers. 10 ) The two-tier reviewer system can be described as follows:…”