Back to Journals » Advances in Medical Education and Practice » Volume 6

Gatekeepers of the academic world: a recipe for good peer review

Authors Chowdhry A

Received 3 March 2015

Accepted for publication 8 March 2015

Published 16 April 2015 Volume 2015:6 Pages 329—330

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S83887

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Editor who approved publication: Dr Md Anwarul Azim Majumder



Aman Chowdhry

Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India

The peer review system relies on assessment of ingenious work by other people in the same domain in order to preserve or improve the quality and creativity of the work.1 Discussion and suggestions on improving the reliability of the process are made in this letter.

Dear editor

The peer review system relies on assessment of ingenious work by other people in the same domain in order to preserve or improve the quality and creativity of the work.1 Discussion and suggestions on improving the reliability of the process are made in this letter.

Peer review is like a gatekeeper in the academic world, and the methods for putting peer review into practice vary across journals and disciplines. The theory behind this system is that a larger and more diverse group of people will usually find more flaws in a work and will be able to make a more unbiased assessment of it than just the person or group who created the work. The strength and weaknesses of the peer review process have been discussed by Sollenberger in a review article.2

Peer review utilizes self-governance and the anonymity of the reviewers (referees) so as to discourage cronyism (ie, bias shown to family and friends) and obtain an unbiased report. The reviewers are not selected from amongst the close colleagues/relatives/friends of the author.

The procedure of peer review is shown in Figure 1. Specialists in a given field judge the professional performance, creativity, or quality of scientific work produced by others in their field or area of competence. In single-blind review, the reviewer identity is hidden to encourage unbiased comments, while in double-blind review, the author’s identity is masked from reviewers to shield against forms of social bias. Further, an “open peer” review journal may employ a “third” party, ie, someone who is neither affiliated directly with the reviewing entity nor associated with author being reviewed.

Figure 1 Procedure of peer review.

There can also be a system of postpublication open-review comments, normally mediated by the editor, that can be posted by readers and reviewers after the article has been published.

The scientific community is in search of ways to make peer review more efficient and effective. It is essential to maintain standards whilst also reducing the load on the reviewers (who are doing honorary work mostly). The process of peer review has evolved away from hard copy to a fully integrated online process, and all major journals usually accept online submissions. Thus peer review has become quicker and with a far lower administrative burden. But there is still plenty of room for improvement within the current peer review process.

Editors are made, not born, and good team work along with technological support can help them do a better job.3 Thus reviewers and editors should be trained to adapt with the evolution in scientific publishing, and be aware that all digital pictures should mandatorily have attached metadata and embossed watermark.4

As recommended by Jolly,5 in addition, each paper can be allocated a “guardian”, who is a member of the editorial board particularly accountable for ensuring the satisfactoriness of the peer review process and providing an extra viewpoint regarding the quality of the paper. Papers should only be accepted for publication after authors have aptly addressed the queries raised by the authority (referees/guardians/editor/editorial board). Thus, in addition to peer review, multiple-point quality checks in the review process are implemented by the editor and editorial board.

Another recommendation is adaptation of appropriate ethical policies, regulation, and best practice. Authors, reviewers, and editors will be required to read and adhere to these policies, which reflect the high standards we expect in peer review. A number of organizations (such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and Committee on Publication Ethics) describe these policies for the peer review process.

Disclosure

The author reports no conflicts of interest in this communication.


References

1.

Harris CD, Bratzler DW. Evaluating quality of care: The role of peer review. J Okla State Med Assoc. 2013;106(7):279, 281–279, 284.

2.

Sollenberger JF. Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90(1):115.

3.

Sivapathasundharam B. Scientific writing: The Indian scenario. Indian J Dent Res. 2008;19(2):87.

4.

Chowdhry A, Sircar K, Popli DB, Tandon A. Image manipulation: Fraudulence in digital dental records: Study and review. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2014;6(1):31–35.

5.

Jolly PD. Re: Journal Standards – Editor’s reply. N Z Vet J. 2003; 51(4):199.

Creative Commons License © 2015 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.