Peer review: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
JRNorbergé (talk | contribs) →Peer review and plagiarism: Linked 'autoplagiarism' to the self plagiarism article. |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work}} |
|||
{{otheruses}} |
|||
{{Redirect|Independent review|the academic journal|The Independent Review}} |
|||
{{selfref|For the peer review process on Wikipedia, see [[Wikipedia:Peer review]].}} |
|||
{{Other uses}} |
|||
[[Image:ScientificReview.jpg|thumbnail|300px|A reviewer at the [[National Institutes of Health]] evaluates a grant proposal.]] |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2021}} |
|||
'''Peer review''' (known as '''refereeing''' in some [[academic]] fields) is a process of subjecting an author's [[Scholarly method|scholarly]] work, research or [[idea]]s to the scrutiny of others who are [[expert]]s in the same field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted [[Manuscript#Manuscripts today|manuscript]]s, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make [[author]]s meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. Even refereed journals, however, can contain errors. |
|||
[[File:ScientificReview.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluating a [[Grant (money)|grant]] proposal]] |
|||
In the case of manuscripts, the [[editing|editor]] will pass manuscripts that are accepted for publication to a [[publisher]] who will be responsible for organizing [[redactory services]], printing and distribution of the publication. In specialist academic (scholarly) journals, the editor (or increasingly group of editors) is normally a well-respected academic in the field, and edits the journal on behalf of a learned society or a commercial publisher. Some journals have professional editors employed by the owner of the journal. An editor is ultimately responsible for the quality and selection of manuscripts chosen to be published, usually basing their decision on peer review, although the authors are always responsible for the content of each manuscript. The editor does not revise and correct spelling, grammar and formatting - that process is carried out by a [[copy editing|copy editor]], although the editor controls the quality of the process. |
|||
'''Peer review''' is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work ([[:wiktionary:peer#Etymology 2|peers]]).<ref>{{Cite web |title=peer review process |url=https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/peer-review-process |access-date=2022-07-05 |website=National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms |language=}}</ref> It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant [[Field of study|field]]. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In [[academia]], [[scholarly peer review]] is often used to determine an [[academic paper]]'s suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., [[#Medical|medical peer review]]. It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last1=Magnifico |first1=Alecia Marie |last2=Woodard |first2=Rebecca |last3=McCarthey |first3=Sarah |date=2019-06-01 |title=Teachers as co-authors of student writing: How teachers' initiating texts influence response and revision in an online space |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S875546151730066X |journal=Computers and Composition |language=en |volume=52 |pages=107–131 |doi=10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.005 |s2cid=86438229 |issn=8755-4615}}</ref> |
|||
==Reasons for peer review== |
|||
A common rationale for peer review is that it is rare for an individual author or research team to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not because deficiencies represent "needles in a haystack" that are difficult to locate, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject , an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or experience. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified, and, with advice and encouragement, fixed. |
|||
[[Henry Oldenburg]] (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |last=Hatch |first=Robert A. |date=February 1998 |title=The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks |url=http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/resource-ref-read/correspond-net/08sr-crrsp.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090116232845/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/resource-ref-read/correspond-net/08sr-crrsp.htm |archive-date=16 January 2009 |access-date=21 August 2016 |publisher=[[University of Florida]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Oldenburg |first=Henry |year=1665 |title=Epistle Dedicatory |journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society]] |volume=1 |pages=0 |doi=10.1098/rstl.1665.0001 |s2cid=186211404}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Boas Hall |first=Marie |title=Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-19-851053-6 |location=Oxford |bibcode=2002heol.book.....B |author-link=Marie Boas Hall}}</ref> It developed over the following centuries with, for example, the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' making it standard practice in 1973. The term "peer review" was first used in the early 1970s.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wills |first=Matthew |date=2024-07-21 |title=The History of Peer Review Is More Interesting Than You Think |url=https://daily.jstor.org/the-history-of-peer-review-is-more-interesting-than-you-think/ |access-date=2024-07-29 |website=JSTOR Daily |language=en-US}}</ref> A monument to peer review has been at the [[Higher School of Economics]] in Moscow since 2017.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schiermeier |first=Quirin |date=2017-05-26 |title=Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.22060 |journal=Nature |language=en |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22060 |issn=1476-4687}}</ref> |
|||
Reviewers are typically [[anonymity|anonymous]] and [[independence|independent]], to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage [[cronyism]] in funding and publication decisions. However, as discussed below under the next section, US government guidelines governing peer review for federal regulatory agencies require that reviewer's identity be disclosed under some circumstances. |
|||
== Professional == |
|||
In addition, since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as many other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the original research (see [[Peer review#Peer review and fraud|Peer review and fraud]] below). |
|||
Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Schimanski |first1=Lesley A. |last2=Alperin |first2=Juan Pablo |date=2018 |title=The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future |journal=[[F1000Research]] |volume=7 |pages=1605 |doi=10.12688/f1000research.16493.1 |issn=2046-1402 |pmc=6325612 |pmid=30647909 |doi-access=free }}</ref> |
|||
A prototype professional peer review process was recommended in the ''[[Adab al-Tabib|Ethics of the Physician]]'' written by [[Al-Ruhawi|Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī]] (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Spier |first=Ray |year=2002 |title=The history of the peer-review<!-- sic --> process |journal=[[Trends in Biotechnology]] |volume=20 |issue=8 |pages=357–8 |doi=10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6 |pmid=12127284}}</ref> |
|||
==How it works== |
|||
In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or [[idea]]s to researchers or scholars who are [[expert]]s in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article. |
|||
Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called ''[[clinical peer review]]''.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dans |first=PE |year=1993 |title=Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image |url=http://www.annals.org/content/118/7/566.full.pdf+html |journal=[[Annals of Internal Medicine]] |volume=118 |issue=7 |pages=566–8 |doi=10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014 |pmid=8442628 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120721025646/http://www.annals.org/content/118/7/566.full.pdf+html |archive-date=2012-07-21 |s2cid=45863865}}</ref> Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.<ref name=":1">{{cite journal |author1=Milgrom P |author2=Weinstein P |author3=Ratener P |author4=Read WA |author5=Morrison K |year=1978 |title=Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment |journal=[[American Journal of Public Health]] |volume=68 |issue=4 |pages=394–401 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394 |pmc=1653950 |pmid=645987}}</ref> Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,<ref name=":5">{{cite web |title=AICPA Peer Review Program Manual |url=http://www.aicpa.org/INTERESTAREAS/PEERREVIEW/RESOURCES/PEERREVIEWPROGRAMMANUAL/Pages/default.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121028064419/http://www.aicpa.org/INTERESTAREAS/PEERREVIEW/RESOURCES/PEERREVIEWPROGRAMMANUAL/Pages/default.aspx |archive-date=28 October 2012 |access-date=4 September 2012 |publisher=[[American Institute of CPAs]]}}</ref> law,<ref>{{cite web |date = 12 July 2007|url=http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/how/mq_peerreview.asp |title=Peer Review |publisher=UK Legal Services Commission |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101014002648/http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/how/mq_peerreview.asp |archive-date = 14 October 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/ |title=Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Reviews and Ratings |publisher=Martindale |access-date=27 January 2020 |archive-date=18 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200118090946/https://www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/ |url-status=live }}</ref> engineering (e.g., [[software peer review]], [[technical peer review]]), aviation, and even forest fire management.<ref name="fire">{{cite web |url=http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/mgmt/briefing_papers/peer_review_panels.pdf |title=Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process |publisher=USDA Forest Service |date=6 February 2006 |access-date=4 October 2010 |archive-date=5 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605073415/http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/mgmt/briefing_papers/peer_review_panels.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|||
These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, including noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; [[scientific journal]]s observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, their own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments. |
|||
Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by [[Bloom's taxonomy]]. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.<ref name="sims">{{cite journal |last=Sims |first=Gerald K. |year=1989 |quote=The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals |title=Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool |url=https://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/jnrlse/pdfs/jnr018/018-02-0105.pdf |journal=Journal of Agronomic Education |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=105–108 |doi=10.2134/jae1989.0105 |access-date=4 September 2012 |archive-date=22 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121222132610/https://www.agronomy.org/files/publications/jnrlse/pdfs/jnr018/018-02-0105.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Liu">{{cite journal|author1-link=Jianguo Liu |last1=Liu |first1=Jianguo |last2=Thorndike Pysarchik |first2=Dawn |last3=Taylor |first3=William W. |year=2002 |title=Peer Review in the Classroom |url=http://chans-net.org/sites/chans-net.org/files/peer_review.pdf |url-status=live |journal=[[BioScience]] |volume=52 |issue=9 |pages=824–829 |doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121222132525/http://chans-net.org/sites/chans-net.org/files/peer_review.pdf |archive-date=22 December 2012 |access-date=4 September 2012 |doi-access=free}}</ref> |
|||
Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from a menu provided by the journal or funding agency. Most recommendations are along the lines of the following: |
|||
== Scholarly == |
|||
* to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal, |
|||
{{excerpt|Scholarly peer review}} |
|||
* to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways, |
|||
* to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission, |
|||
* to reject it outright. |
|||
==Medical== |
|||
During this process, the role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is typically under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. Furthermore, in scientific publication, the referees do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve [[consensus]]. Thus the group dynamics are substantially different from that of a [[jury]]. In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. |
|||
{{main|Clinical peer review}} |
|||
'''Medical peer review''' may be distinguished in four classifications:<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Review by Peers|url=https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/37358-Review-by-Peers1.pdf|journal=A Guide for Professional, Clinical and Administrative Processes|access-date=6 August 2020|archive-date=30 October 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201030224838/https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/37358-Review-by-Peers1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
# [[Clinical peer review]] is a procedure for assessing a patient's involvement with experiences of care. It is a piece of progressing proficient practice assessment and centered proficient practice assessment—significant supporters of supplier credentialing and privileging.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Deyo-Svendsen|first1=Mark E.|last2=Phillips|first2=Michael R.|last3=Albright|first3=Jill K.|last4=Schilling|first4=Keith A.|last5=Palmer|first5=Karl B.|date=October–December 2016|title=A Systematic Approach to Clinical Peer Review in a Critical Access Hospital|journal=Quality Management in Healthcare|language=en-US|volume=25|issue=4|pages=213–218|doi=10.1097/QMH.0000000000000113|pmid=27749718|issn=1063-8628|pmc=5054974}}</ref> |
|||
# Peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://medschool.ucsf.edu/academy/pdfs/Clinical-Peer-Review-Literature-Excerpts.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100814052748/http://medschool.ucsf.edu/academy/pdfs/Clinical-Peer-Review-Literature-Excerpts.pdf |title=Medschool.ucsf.edu|archive-date=14 August 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M|title=Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review|journal= Nurse Educator|volume=23 |issue=6 |pages=17–20 |date=November–December 1998|doi=10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008|pmid=9934106}}</ref> |
|||
# Scientific peer review of journal articles. |
|||
# A secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in [[medical journal]]s.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J |title=Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners|journal= JAMA |volume=295 |issue=15 |pages=1801–8 |year=2006|doi=10.1001/jama.295.15.1801 |doi-access=free |pmid=16622142|s2cid=42567486 |s2cid-access=free |display-authors=etal }}</ref> |
|||
Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the [[American Medical Association]] to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/21/omss-bylaws-4thedition-final.pdf|title=Physician's Guide to Medical Staff Organization Bylaws|page= 131|first=Elizabeth A. |last =Snelson|date=2010|publisher=American Medical Association |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20110806223838/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/21/omss-bylaws-4thedition-final.pdf |archive-date = 6 August 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title = Medical Peer Review|url = http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/medical-peer-review.shtml |website =American Medical Association|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100306064610/http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/medical-peer-review.shtml |archive-date=6 March 2010 }}</ref> The clinical network believes it to be the most ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.<ref>{{Cite web|date=29 March 2019|title=Peer review: What is it and why do we do it?|url=https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281528|access-date=2020-08-06|website=Medical News Today |first1=Adam |last1=Felman |language=en|archive-date=28 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200828151726/https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281528|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's [[criticism]]s and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, an editor will convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow referees to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to convince anyone to change their opinions. Some medical journals, however (usually following the [[open access]] model), have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts. |
|||
==Technical== |
|||
Traditionally, reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard is slowly changing. In some academic fields, most journals now offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not, or a referee may opt to sign a review, thereby relinquishing anonymity. Published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgements section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper. |
|||
{{Main|Technical peer review}} |
|||
In [[engineering]], technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.<ref name="NASA-6105">{{cite book| title=NASA Systems Engineering Handbook| id=SP-610S| date=December 2007 | publisher=[[NASA]]| url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008301_2008008500.pdf| access-date=19 July 2019| archive-date=19 October 2013| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019044934/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080008301_2008008500.pdf| url-status=dead }}</ref> |
|||
== |
==Government policy== |
||
{{Further|U.S. Government peer review policies}} |
|||
The [[European Union]] has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of [[active labour market policy]] since 1999.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/social/mlp|title=Mutual Learning Programme – Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion |website=European Commission |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230328091511/https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1047 |archive-date= Mar 28, 2023 }}</ref> In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in [[social inclusion]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu|title= Peer Review in Social Protection and Social Inclusion and Assessment in Social Inclusion |website= peer-review-social-inclusion.eu|access-date=30 September 2021|archive-date=Jul 18, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120718145342/http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu/ |url-status=usurped }}</ref> Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level [[Non-governmental organization|NGOs]]. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an [[expert report]] on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web. |
|||
The [[United Nations Economic Commission for Europe]], through [[UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews]], uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies. |
|||
At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an [[editing|editor]]. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from [[scholar]]s or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that [[journal]] or [[book division]]. Granting agencies typically recruit a [[panel]] or [[committee]] of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications. |
|||
The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any [[California Environmental Protection Agency|CalEPA]] Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the [[California Health and Safety Code]] Section 57004.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ceparev.berkeley.edu/what-is-peer-review/|title=What is Scientific Peer Review?|website=ceparev.berkeley.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2017-03-30|archive-date=30 March 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170330180350/https://ceparev.berkeley.edu/what-is-peer-review/|url-status=live}}</ref> |
|||
In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as [[academic conference|conferences]] and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), who generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accept or reject the paper. |
|||
== Pedagogical == |
|||
Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close [[Collegiality|colleague]]s, students, or friends. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any [[conflict of interests]] that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be ''disqualified'', in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgements" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers). |
|||
{{main article|Peer feedback}} |
|||
Peer review, or student peer assessment, is the method by which editors and writers work together in hopes of helping the author establish and further flesh out and develop their own writing.<ref name=":6">{{cite journal | jstor=26821317 | title=A Study of the Practices and Responsibilities of Scholarly Peer Review in Rhetoric and Composition | last1=Söderlund | first1=Lars | last2=Wells | first2=Jaclyn | journal=College Composition and Communication | year=2019 | volume=71 | issue=1 | pages=117–144 | doi=10.58680/ccc201930297 | s2cid=219259301 }}</ref> Peer review is widely used in secondary and post-secondary education as part of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other's work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Søndergaard|first1=Harald|last2=Mulder|first2=Raoul A.|date=2012|title=Collaborative learning through formative peer review: pedagogy, programs and potential|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08993408.2012.728041|journal=Computer Science Education|language=en|volume=22|issue=4|pages=343–367|doi=10.1080/08993408.2012.728041|bibcode=2012CSEd...22..343S|s2cid=40784250|issn=0899-3408|access-date=18 August 2021|archive-date=5 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210505123331/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08993408.2012.728041|url-status=live}}</ref> Rather than a means of critiquing each other's work, peer review is often framed as a way to build connection between students and help develop writers' identity.<ref name=":9">{{cite journal |last1=Mundy |first1=Robert |last2=Sugerman |first2=Rachel |title="What Can You Possibly Know About My Experience?": Toward a Practice of Self-Reflection and Multicultural Competence |journal=The Peer Review |date=Fall 2017 |volume=1 |issue=2 |url=https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/braver-spaces/what-can-you-possibly-know-about-my-experience-toward-a-practice-of-self-reflection-and-multicultural-competence/}}</ref> While widely used in [[English studies|English]] and [[Composition studies|composition]] classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines that require writing as part of the curriculum including the [[Social science|social]] and [[natural science]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Guilford|first=William H.|date=2001-09-01|title=Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing|url=https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167|journal=Advances in Physiology Education|volume=25|issue=3|pages=167–175|doi=10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167|pmid=11824193|issn=1043-4046|access-date=18 August 2021|archive-date=18 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210818165622/https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Baker|first=Kimberly M.|date=2016-11-01|title=Peer review as a strategy for improving students' writing process|journal=Active Learning in Higher Education|language=en|volume=17|issue=3|pages=179–192|doi=10.1177/1469787416654794|s2cid=49527249|issn=1469-7874}}</ref> |
|||
Peer review in classrooms helps students become more invested in their work, and the classroom environment at large.<ref name=":12">{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005 | title=What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback | year=2012 | last1=Wigglesworth | first1=Gillian | last2=Storch | first2=Neomy | journal=Journal of Second Language Writing | volume=21 | issue=4 | pages=364–374 }}</ref> Understanding how their work is read by a diverse readership before it is graded by the teacher may also help students clarify ideas and understand how to persuasively reach different audience members via their writing. It also gives students professional experience that they might draw on later when asked to review the work of a colleague prior to publication.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Benefits of Peer Review|url=https://www.southwestern.edu/offices/writing/faculty-resources-for-writing-instruction/peer-review/benefits-of-peer-review/|access-date=2021-08-19|website=www.southwestern.edu|language=en|archive-date=19 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210819140738/https://www.southwestern.edu/offices/writing/faculty-resources-for-writing-instruction/peer-review/benefits-of-peer-review/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite conference |last1=Kern |first1=Vinícius M. |last2=Possamai |first2=Osmar |last3=Selig |first3=Paulo M. |last4=Pacheco |first4=Roberto C. dos S. |last5=de Souza |first5=Gilberto C. |last6=Rautenberg |first6=Sandro |last7=Lemos |first7=Renata T. da S. |editor1-last=Tatnall |editor1-first=A. |editor2-last=Jones |editor2-first=A. |date=2009 |pages=388–397 |title=Growing a peer review culture among graduate students |book-title=Education and Technology for a Better World |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-03115-1_41 |doi-access=free |isbn=978-3-642-03114-4|hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30082218 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> The process can also bolster the confidence of students on both sides of the process. It has been found that students are more positive than negative when reviewing their classmates' writing.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |author=Anna Wärnsby |author2=Asko Kauppinen |author3=Laura Aull |author4=Djuddah Leijen |author5=Joe Moxley |date=2018 |title=Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts |journal=Journal of Academic Writing |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=28–53|doi=10.18552/joaw.v8i1.429 |doi-access=free |language=en-US|hdl=2043/26718 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Peer review can help students not get discouraged but rather feel determined to improve their writing.<ref name=":2" /> |
|||
Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because [[academia|academic]] writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialities, and may not be experts in any of them, since editors may be full time professionals with no time for [[scholarly method|scholarship]]. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other. Policies on such matters differ between academic disciplines. |
|||
Critics of peer review in classrooms say that it can be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving constructive criticism, or lack of expertise in the writing craft at large.<ref>{{Cite web|title=What Are the Disadvantages of Student Peer Review? {{!}} Synonym|url=https://classroom.synonym.com/disadvantages-student-peer-review-10913.html|access-date=2021-08-20|website=classroom.synonym.com|language=en|archive-date=30 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210930055624/https://classroom.synonym.com/disadvantages-student-peer-review-10913.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Peer review can be problematic for developmental writers, particularly if students view their writing as inferior to others in the class as they may be unwilling to offer suggestions or ask other writers for help.<ref name=":8"> Gere, Anne Ruggles; Silver, Naomi, eds. (2019). Developing Writers in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-13124-2.</ref> Peer review can impact a student's opinion of themselves as well as others as sometimes students feel a personal connection to the work they have produced, which can also make them feel reluctant to receive or offer criticism.<ref name=":9" /> Teachers using peer review as an assignment can lead to rushed-through feedback by peers, using incorrect praise or criticism, thus not allowing the writer or the editor to get much out of the activity.<ref name=":5" /> As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the class, or focus on specific areas of feedback during the peer review process.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Conducting Peer Review – Writers Workshop|url=https://writersworkshop.illinois.edu/resources-2/instructor-resources/conducting-peer-review/|access-date=2021-08-20|language=en-US|archive-date=20 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210820153927/https://writersworkshop.illinois.edu/resources-2/instructor-resources/conducting-peer-review/|url-status=live}}</ref> Instructors may also experiment with in-class peer review vs. peer review as homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning management systems online. Students that are older can give better feedback to their peers, getting more out of peer review, but it is still a method used in classrooms to help students young and old learn how to revise.<ref name=":4" /> With evolving and changing technology, peer review will develop as well. New tools could help alter the process of peer review.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Reese |first1=Ashley |last2=Rachamalla |first2=Rajeev |last3=Rudniy |first3=Alex |last4=Aull |first4=Laura |last5=Eubanks |first5=David |date=2018 |title=Contemporary Peer Review: Construct Modeling, Measurement Foundations, and the Future of Digital Learning |journal=The Journal of Writing Analytics |volume=2 |pages=96–137 |url=https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/jwa/vol2/reese.pdf |doi=10.37514/JWA-J.2018.2.1.05}}</ref> |
|||
Recruiting [[referee]]s is a political art, because referees, and often editors, are usually not paid, and reviewing takes time away from the referee's main activities, such as his or her own research. To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are [[author]]s themselves, or at least [[reader]]s, who know that the publication system requires that [[expert]]s donate their time. Referees also have the opportunity to prevent work that does not meet the standards of the field from being published, which is a position of some responsibility. Editors are at a special advantage in recruiting a [[scholar]] when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publication in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership. |
|||
== Peer seminar == |
|||
Another difficulty that peer-review organizers face is that, with respect to some manuscripts or proposals, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts. Such a circumstance often frustrates the goals of reviewer anonymity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also increases the chances that an organizer will not be able to recruit true experts – people who have themselves done work like that under review, and who can read between the lines. Low-prestige or local journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts. |
|||
Peer seminar is a method that involves a speaker that presents ideas to an audience that also acts as a "contest".<ref name=":10" /> To further elaborate, there are multiple speakers that are called out one at a time and given an amount of time to present the topic that they have researched. Each speaker may or may not talk about the same topic but each speaker has something to gain or lose which can foster a competitive atmosphere.<ref name=":10">{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00043-2 | title=The peer seminar, a spoken research process genre | year=2004 | last1=Aguilar | first1=Marta | journal=Journal of English for Academic Purposes | volume=3 | pages=55–72 }}</ref> This approach allows speakers to present in a more personal tone while trying to appeal to the audience while explaining their topic. |
|||
Peer seminars may be somewhat similar to what conference speakers do, however, there is more time to present their points, and speakers can be interrupted by audience members to provide questions and feedback upon the topic or how well the speaker did in presenting their topic.<ref name=":10" /> |
|||
Finally, [[anonymity]] adds to the difficulty in finding reviewers in another way. In scientific circles, [[credentials]] and [[reputation]] are important, and while being a referee for a prestigious journal is considered an honor, the anonymity restrictions make it impossible to publicly state that one was a referee for a particular article. However, credentials and reputation are principally established by publications, not by refereeing; and in some fields refereeing may not be anonymous. |
|||
== Peer review in writing == |
|||
The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues in [[journal club]]s. Here groups of colleagues review literature and discuss the value and implications it presents. Journal clubs will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club.<ref>http://www.JournalReview.org</ref> In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature. |
|||
Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. Peer review in writing is a pivotal component among various peer review mechanisms, often spearheaded by educators and involving student participation, particularly in academic settings. It constitutes a fundamental process in academic and professional writing, serving as a systematic means to ensure the quality, effectiveness, and credibility of scholarly work. However, despite its widespread use, it is one of the most scattered, inconsistent, and ambiguous practices associated with writing instruction.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Armstrong |first1=Sonya L. |last2=Paulson |first2=Eric J. |title=Whither 'Peer Review'?: Terminology Matters for the Writing Classroom |journal=Teaching English in the Two-Year College |date=1 May 2008 |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=398–407 |id={{ProQuest|220963655}} |doi=10.58680/tetyc20086557 }}</ref> Many scholars questioning its effectiveness and specific methodologies. Critics of peer review in classrooms express concerns about its ineffectiveness due to students' lack of practice in giving constructive criticism or their limited expertise in the writing craft overall. |
|||
== |
== Critiques of peer review == |
||
Academic peer review has faced considerable criticism, with many studies highlighting inherent issues in the peer review process. |
|||
Peer review can be ''rigorous'', in terms of the skill brought to bear, without being highly ''stringent''. An agency may be flush with money to give away, for example, or a journal may have few impressive manuscripts to choose from, so there may be little incentive for selection. Conversely, when either funds or publication space is limited, peer review may be used to select an extremely small number of proposals or manuscripts. |
|||
The editorial peer review process has been found to be strongly biased against ‘negative studies,’ i.e. studies that do not work. This then biases the information base of medicine. Journals become biased against negative studies when values come into play. “Who wants to read something that doesn’t work?” asks Richard Smith in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. “That’s boring.” |
|||
Often the decision of what counts as "good enough" falls entirely to the editor or organizer of the review. In other cases, referees will each be asked to make the call, with only general guidance from the coordinator on what stringency to apply. |
|||
This is also particularly evident in university classrooms, where the most common source of writing feedback during student years often comes from teachers, whose comments are often highly valued. Students may become influenced to provide research in line with the professor’s viewpoints, because of the teacher’s position of high authority. The effectiveness of feedback largely stems from its high authority. Benjamin Keating, in his article "A Good Development Thing: A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing," conducted a longitudinal study comparing two groups of students (one majoring in writing and one not) to explore students' perceptions of authority. This research, involving extensive analysis of student texts, concludes that students majoring in non-writing fields tend to undervalue mandatory peer review in class, while those majoring in writing value classmates' comments more. This reflects that peer review feedback has a certain threshold, and effective peer review requires a certain level of expertise. For non-professional writers, peer review feedback may be overlooked, thereby affecting its effectiveness.<ref>{{Citation |last=Keating |first=Benjamin |title='A Good Development Thing': A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing |date=2019 |work=Developing Writers in Higher Education |pages=56–80 |editor-last=Gere |editor-first=Anne Ruggles |jstor=j.ctvdjrpt3.7 |series=A Longitudinal Study |publisher=University of Michigan Press |isbn=978-0-472-13124-2}}</ref> |
|||
Very general journals such as ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers that report good quality scientific work if editors feel the work is not a breakthrough in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings -- if correct -- would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in ''Science'' or ''Nature''. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journal's online Electronic Supporting Information archive. |
|||
Elizabeth Ellis Miller, Cameron Mozafari, Justin Lohr and Jessica Enoch state, "While peer review is an integral part of writing classrooms, students often struggle to effectively engage in it." The authors illustrate some reasons for the inefficiency of peer review based on research conducted during peer review sessions in university classrooms: |
|||
A similar emphasis on novelty exists in general area journals such as the ''[[Journal of the American Chemical Society]]'' (''JACS''). However, these journals generally send out all papers (except blatantly inappropriate ones) for peer reviewing to multiple reviewers. The reviewers are specifically queried not just on the scientific quality and correctness, but also on whether the findings are of interest to the general area readership (chemists of all disciplines, in the case of ''JACS'') or only to a specialist subgroup. In the latter case, the recommendation is usually for publication in a more specialized journal. The editor may offer to authors the option of having the manuscript and reviews forwarded to such a journal with the same publishers (e.g., in the example given, ''Journal of Organic Chemistry'', ''Journal of Physical Chemistry'', ''Inorganic Chemistry'',...). if the reviewer reports warrant such a decision (i.e., they boil down to "Great work, but too specialized for JACS: publish in ..."), the editor of such a journal may accept the forwarded manuscript without further reviewing. |
|||
# Lack of Training: Students and even some faculty members may not have received sufficient training to provide constructive feedback. Without proper guidance on what to look for and how to provide helpful comments, peer reviewers may find it challenging to offer meaningful insights. |
|||
Some general area journals, such as ''[[Physical Review Letters]]'', have strict length limitations. Others, such as ''JACS'', have Letters and Full Papers sections: the Letters sections have strict length limits (two journal pages in the case of ''JACS'') and special novelty requirements. In contrast, online-only journals may have no space limitations.<ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/reasons</ref> |
|||
# Limited Engagement: Students may participate in peer review sessions with minimal enthusiasm or involvement, viewing them as obligatory tasks rather than valuable learning opportunities. This lack of investment can result in superficial feedback that fails to address underlying issues in the writing. |
|||
More specialized scientific journals such as the aforementioned chemistry journals, ''[[Astrophysical Journal]]'', and the ''[[Physical Review]]'' series use peer review primarily to filter out obvious mistakes and incompetence, as well as plagiarism, overly derivative work, and straightforward applications of known methods. Different publication rates reflect these different criteria: ''Nature'' publishes about 5 percent of received papers, while ''Astrophysical Journal'' publishes about 70 percent. The different publication rates are also reflected in the size of the journals. ''[[PLoS ONE]]'' was launched by the [[Public Library of Science]] in 2006 with the aim to "concentrate on technical rather than subjective concerns", and to publish articles from across science, regardless of the field.<ref>http://www.plosone.org/enwiki/static/information.action</ref> |
|||
# Time Constraints: Instructors often allocate limited time for peer review activities during class sessions, which may not be adequate for thorough reviews of peers' work. Consequently, feedback may be rushed or superficial, lacking the depth required for meaningful improvement. |
|||
This research demonstrates that besides issues related to expertise, numerous objective factors contribute to students' poor performance in peer review sessions, resulting in feedback from peer reviewers that may not effectively assist authors. Additionally, this study highlights the influence of emotions in peer review sessions, suggesting that both peer reviewers and authors cannot completely eliminate emotions when providing and receiving feedback. This can lead to peer reviewers and authors approaching the feedback with either positive or negative attitudes towards the text, resulting in selective or biased feedback and review, further impacting their ability to objectively evaluate the article. It implies that subjective emotions may also affect the effectiveness of peer review feedback.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=Elizabeth Ellis |last2=Mozafari |first2=Cameron |last3=Lohr |first3=Justin |last4=Enoch |first4=Jessica |title=Thinking about Feeling: The Roles of Emotion in Reflective Writing |journal=College Composition and Communication |date=February 2023 |volume=74 |issue=3 |pages=485–521 |id={{ProQuest|2802085546}} |doi=10.58680/ccc202332364 }}</ref> |
|||
Screening by peers may be more or less [[laissez-faire]] depending on the discipline. [[Physicists]], for example, tend to think that decisions about the worthiness of an article are best left to the marketplace. Yet even within such a culture peer review serves to ensure high standards in what is published. Outright errors are detected and authors receive both edits and suggestions. |
|||
Pamela Bedore and Brian O’Sullivan also hold a skeptical view of peer review in most writing contexts. The authors conclude, based on comparing different forms of peer review after systematic training at two universities, that "the crux is that peer review is not just about improving writing but about helping authors achieve their writing vision." Feedback from the majority of non-professional writers during peer review sessions often tends to be superficial, such as simple grammar corrections and questions. This precisely reflects the implication in the conclusion that the focus is only on improving writing skills. Meaningful peer review involves understanding the author's writing intent, posing valuable questions and perspectives, and guiding the author to achieve their writing goals.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Writing centers go to class: Peer review (of our) workshops |url=https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/wln/v35/35.9-10.pdf}}</ref> |
|||
To preserve the integrity of the peer-review process, submitting authors may not be informed of who reviews their papers; sometimes, they might not even know the identity of the associate editor who is responsible for the paper. In many cases, alternatively called "masked" or "double-masked" review (or "blind" or "double-blind" review), the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, lest the knowledge of authorship bias their review; in such cases, however, the associate editor responsible for the paper does know who the author is. Sometimes the scenario where the reviewers do know who the authors are is called "single-masked" to distinguish it from the "double-masked" process. In double-masked review, the authors are required to remove any reference that may point to them as the authors of the paper. |
|||
== Comparison and improvement == |
|||
While the anonymity of reviewers is almost universally preserved, double-masked review (where authors are also anonymous to reviewers) is rarely employed. |
|||
Magda Tigchelaar compares peer review with self-assessment through an experiment that divided students into three groups: self-assessment, peer review, and no review. Across four writing projects, she observed changes in each group, with surprisingly results showing significant improvement only in the self-assessment group. The author's analysis suggests that self-assessment allows individuals to clearly understand the revision goals at each stage, as the author is the most familiar with their own writing. Thus, self-checking naturally follows a systematic and planned approach to revision. In contrast, the effectiveness of peer review is often limited due to the lack of structured feedback, characterized by scattered, meaningless summaries and evaluations that fail to meet author's expectations for revising their work.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Tigchelaar |first=Magda |date=2016-01-01 |title=The Impact of Peer Review on Writing Development in French as a Foreign Language |url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol2/iss2/2 |journal=Journal of Response to Writing |volume=2 |issue=2 |issn=2575-9809}}</ref> |
|||
Stephanie Conner and Jennifer Gray highlight the value of most students' feedback during peer review. They argue that many peer review sessions fail to meet students' expectations, as students, even as reviewers themselves, feel uncertain about providing constructive feedback due to their lack of confidence in their own writing. The authors further offer numerous improvement strategies across various dimensions, such as course content and specific implementation steps. For instance, the peer review process can be segmented into groups, where students present the papers to be reviewed, while other group members take notes and analyze them. Then, the review scope can be expanded to the entire class. This widens the review sources and further enhances the level of professionalism.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Conner |first=Stephanie |last2=Gray |first2=Jennifer |date=2023-04-15 |title=Resisting the Deficit Model: Embedding Writing Center Tutors during Peer Review in Writing-Intensive Courses |url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol9/iss1/4 |journal=Journal of Response to Writing |volume=9 |issue=1 |issn=2575-9809}}</ref> |
|||
Critics of the double-masked process point out that, despite the extra editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., may point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person.<ref>http://blogs.nature.com/nn/actionpotential/2005/12/doubleblind_peer_review.html</ref> |
|||
Proponents of double-masked review argue that it performs at least as well as the traditional one and that it generates a better perception of fairness and equality in global scientific funding and publishing.<ref>"[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1201308 Peer Review—The Newcomers' Perspective]" (2004) PLoS Biol. 2005 September; 3(9): e326 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326.</ref> |
|||
With evolving and changing technology, peer review is also expected to evolve. New tools have the potential to transform the peer review process. Mimi Li discusses the effectiveness and feedback of an online peer review software used in their freshman writing class. Unlike traditional peer review methods commonly used in classrooms, the online peer review software offers a plethora of tools for editing articles, along with comprehensive guidance. For instance, it lists numerous questions peer reviewers can ask and allows for various comments to be added to the selected text. Based on observations over the course of a semester, students showed varying degrees of improvement in their writing skills and grades after using the online peer review software. Additionally, they highly praised the technology of online peer review.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Li |first=Mimi |date=2018-01-01 |title=Online Peer Review Using Turnitin PeerMark |url=https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol4/iss2/5 |journal=Journal of Response to Writing |volume=4 |issue=2 |issn=2575-9809}}</ref> |
|||
Proponents of the double-masked process argue that if the reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other, the associate editor responsible for the paper can easily verify the objectivity of the reviews. Single-masked review is thus strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants. |
|||
A more rigorous standard of accountability is known as an audit. Because reviewers are not paid, they cannot be expected to put as much time and effort into a review as an audit requires. Most journals (and grant agencies like NSF) have a policy that authors must [[Scientific data archiving|archive]] their data and methods in the event another researcher wishes to replicate or audit the research after publication. Unfortunately, the archiving policies are sometimes ignored by researchers. |
|||
==Criticisms of peer review== |
|||
One of the most common complaints about the peer review process is that it is slow, and that it typically takes several months or even several years in some fields for a submitted paper to appear in print. In practice, much of the communication about new results in some fields such as [[astronomy]] no longer takes place through peer reviewed papers, but rather through [[preprint]]s submitted onto electronic servers such as [[ArXiv.org e-print archive|arXiv.org]]. |
|||
While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the [[scientific community]] to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of ''[[Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.<ref>http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/11/1438</ref> He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."<ref>http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm</ref> |
|||
[[Richard Horton]], editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." <ref>[http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html]</ref> |
|||
===Allegations of bias and suppression=== |
|||
In addition, some [[Science and technology studies|sociologists of science]] argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by [[elite]]s and to personal jealousy.<ref>"[http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-08/cu-bse081204.php British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report]" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: 16-Aug-2004</ref> The peer review process may [[Suppression of dissent|suppress dissent]] against "[[mainstream]]" theories.<ref>Brian Martin, "[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ Suppression Stories]" (1997) in ''Fund for Intellectual Dissent'' ISBN 0-646-30349-X</ref><ref>See also Juan Miguel Campanario, "[http://www2.uah.es/jmc/nobel.html Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries]", cited in ''Nature'', 16-Oct-2003, Vol 425, Issue 6959, p.645</ref><ref>Juan Miguel Campanario and Brian Martin, "[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/04jse.html Challenging dominant physics paradigms]" (2004) ''[[Journal of Scientific Exploration]]'', vol. 18, no. 3, Fall 2004, pp. 421-438</ref> Reviewers tend to be especially critical of [[conclusion]]s that contradict their own [[view]]s, and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, elite scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or [[publisher]]s. As a result, it has been argued, ideas that harmonize with the elite's are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with [[Thomas Kuhn]]'s well-known observations regarding [[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions|scientific revolutions]].<ref>See also: Sophie Petit-Zeman, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4583809-111019,00.html Trial by peers comes up short]" (2003) The Guardian, Thursday January 16, 2003</ref> |
|||
Others have pointed out that there is a very large number of [[scientific journal]]s in which one can publish, making total control of [[information]] difficult. In addition, the decision-making process of peer review, in which each referee gives their opinion separately and without consultation with the other referees, is intended to mitigate some of these problems. Some have suggested that: |
|||
:"... peer review does not thwart new ideas. Journal editors and the 'scientific establishment' are not hostile to new discoveries. Science thrives on discovery and scientific journals compete to publish new breakthroughs."<ref>Ayala, F.J. "On the scientific methods, its practice and pitfalls", (1994) ''[http://www.history-journals.de/index2.html History and Philosophy of Life Sciences]'' 16, 205-240.</ref> |
|||
Nonetheless, while it is generally possible to publish results somewhere, in order for scientists in many fields to attract and maintain funding it is necessary to publish in elite, prestigious journals. Such journals are generally identified by their [[impact factor]]. The small number of high-impact journals is susceptible to control by an elite group of anonymous reviewers.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} Results published in low-impact journals are usually ignored by most scientists in any field. This has led to calls for the removal of reviewer anonymity (especially at high-impact journals) and for the introduction of author anonymity (so that reviewers cannot tell whether the author is a member of any elite). |
|||
==Peer review failures== |
|||
{{more|Peer review failure}} |
|||
Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains obvious fundamental errors that undermines at least one of its main conclusions. Peer review is not considered a failure in cases of deliberate fraud by authors. Letters-to-the-editor that correct major errors in articles are a common indication of peer review failures. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters. Some do not even publish letters. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. Neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if there was a peer review failure. |
|||
Peer review, in scientific journals, assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud. The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust. It is not usually practical for the reviewer to reproduce the author's work, unless the paper deals with purely theoretical problems which the reviewer can follow in a step-by-step manner. |
|||
The number and proportion of articles which are detected as fraudulent at review stage is unknown. Some instances of outright [[scientific fraud]] and [[scientific misconduct]] have gone through review and were detected only after other groups tried and failed to replicate the published results. An example is the case of [[Jan Hendrik Schön]], in which a total of fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked journals ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' and ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' following the usual peer review process. All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently withdrawn. The fraud was eventually detected, not by peer review, but after publication when other groups tried and failed to reproduce the results of the paper. |
|||
The International Committee for Medical Journal Editors' [[Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals]]<ref>http://www.icmje.org/index.html#top</ref> states that "if a fraudulent paper has been published, the journal must print a retraction",<ref>http://www.icmje.org/#correct</ref> and gives guidelines on investigating alleged fraud. Members of the UK-based [[Committee on Publication Ethics]]<ref>http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/</ref>(COPE) have a duty to investigate allegations of [[Scientific misconduct|misconduct]].<ref>http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines/code</ref> |
|||
A study published in the [[peer reviewed]] Lancet Journal associating long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with a lower risk of oral cancer, was shown to be "completely fabricated"<ref>http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22952/</ref> |
|||
, after which the journal published a retraction, and acknowledged that the study "contains fabricated data." <ref>http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606681208/fulltext</ref> |
|||
Although it is often argued that fraud cannot be detected during peer review, the ''Journal of Cell Biology'' uses an [[Scientific misconduct#Photo Manipulation|image screening process]] that it claims could have identified the apparently manipulated figures published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' by [[Woo-Suk Hwang]].<ref>http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23156/</ref> |
|||
===Peer review and plagiarism=== |
|||
A few cases of plagiarism by historians have been widely publicized.<ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/1081.html Historians on the Hot Seat]</ref> A poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. [[National Institutes of Health]] found 0.3% admitted faking data, 1.4% admitted plagiarism, and 4.7% admitted to autoplagiarism.<ref>Weiss, Rick. 2005. Many scientists admit to misconduct: Degrees of deception vary in poll. Washington Post. June 9, 2005. page A03.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html]</ref> [Autoplagiarism|Self Plagiarism] involves an author republishing the same material or data without citing their earlier work. An author often uses to augment their list of publications. Sometimes reviewers detect cases of likely plagiarism and bring them to the attention of the editor. Reviewers generally lack access to raw data, but do see the full text of the manuscript. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism or autoplagiarism of prose than fraudulent data. |
|||
Although it is more common than plagiarism, journals and employers often do not punish authors for autoplagiarism. Autoplagiarism is against the rules of most peer-reviewed journals, which usually require that only unpublished material be submitted. |
|||
===Abuse of inside information by reviewers=== |
|||
A related form of professional misconduct that is sometimes reported is a reviewer using the not-yet-published information from a manuscript or grant application for personal or professional gain. The frequency with which this happens is of course unknown, but the [[United States Office of Research Integrity]] has sanctioned reviewers who have been caught exploiting knowledge they gained as reviewers. |
|||
== Dynamic and open peer review == |
|||
It has been suggested that traditional anonymous peer review lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent,<ref>http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/123/9/1964</ref> alongside other flaws.<ref>http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/</ref> In response to these criticisms, other systems of peer review have been suggested. |
|||
In 1996, the ''[[Journal of Interactive Media in Education]]''<ref> http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/</ref> launched using open peer review.<ref>http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/about.html#lifecycle</ref> Reviewers' names are made public and they are therefore accountable for their review, but they also have their contribution acknowledged. Authors have the right of reply, and other researchers have the chance to comment prior to publication. In 1999, the ''[[British Medical Journal]]''<ref>http://www.bmj.com/</ref> moved to an open peer review system, revealing reviewers' identities to the authors,<ref>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4</ref> and in 2000, the medical journals in the [[open access]],<ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/bmcseries BMC series</ref> published by [[BioMed Central]], launched using open peer review. As with the ''[[British Medical Journal|BMJ]]'', the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. In addition, if the article is published the reports are made available online as part of the 'pre-publication history'. |
|||
Several of the other journals published by the [[BMJ group]]<ref>http://www.bmjgroup.com/</ref> allow optional open peer review,<ref>http://ard.bmj.com/ifora/peer_rev.dtl</ref><ref>http://jme.bmj.com/ifora/peer_rev.dtl</ref><ref>http://emj.bmj.com/ifora/peer_rev.dtl</ref> as do ''[[PLoS Medicine]]'', published by the [[Public Library of Science]]<ref>http://www.plos.org/</ref><ref>http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/reviewer_guidelines.php#anonymity</ref> and the ''[[Journal of Medical Internet Research]]''.<ref>http://www.jmir.org/</ref> |
|||
The evidence of the effect of open peer review upon the quality of reviews, the tone and the time spent on reviewing is mixed, although it does seem that under open peer review, more of those who are invited to review decline to do so.<ref>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/318/7175/23?ijkey=8feca9dda2f29a07ec06f70a661120c97578c339&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha</ref><ref>http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/176/1/47</ref> |
|||
In June 2006, the high impact journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' launched an experiment in parallel open peer review - some articles that had been submitted to the regular anonymous process were also available online for open, identified public comment.<ref>http://blogs.nature.com/nature/peerreview/trial/</ref> The results were less than encouraging - only 5% of authors agreed to participate in the experiment, and only 54% of those articles received comments.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html</ref><ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/full/444971b.html</ref> The editors have suggested that researchers may have been too busy to take part and were reluctant to make their names public. The knowledge that articles were simultaneously being subjected to anonymous peer review may also have affected the uptake. |
|||
In 2006, a group of UK academics launched the online journal ''[[Philica]]'', which tries to redress many of the problems of traditional peer review. Unlike in a normal journal, all articles submitted to ''Philica'' are published immediately and the review process takes place afterwards. Reviews are still anonymous, but instead of reviewers being chosen by an editor, any researcher who wishes to review an article can do so. Reviews are displayed at the end of each article, and so are used to give the reader criticism or guidance about the work, rather than to decide whether it is published or not. This means that reviewers cannot suppress ideas if they disagree with them. Readers use reviews to guide what they read, and particularly popular or unpopular work is easy to identify. |
|||
Another approach that is similar in spirit to ''Philica'' is that of a dynamical peer review site, [[Naboj]].<ref>http://www.naboj.com</ref> Unlike ''Philica'', Naboj is not a full-fledged online journal, but rather it provides an opportunity for users to write peer reviews of [[preprints]] at [[ArXiv.org e-print archive|arXiv.org]]. The review system is modeled on [[Amazon.com|Amazon]] and users have an opportunity to evaluate the reviews as well as the articles. That way, with a sufficient number of users and reviewers, there should be a convergence towards a higher quality review process. A site that is similar to Naboj, but applied to the biological and medical literature, is.<ref>http://www.journalreview.org/ JournalReview.org</ref> |
|||
In February 2006, the journal ''[[Biology Direct]]''<ref>http://www.biology-direct.com</ref> was launched by [[Eugene Koonin]], Laura Landweber, and [[David Lipman]], providing another alternative to the traditional model of peer review. If authors can find three members of the Editorial Board who will each return a report or will themselves solicit an external review, then the article will be published. As with ''[[Philica]]'', reviewers cannot suppress publication, but in contrast to ''Philica'', no reviews are anonymous and no article is published without being reviewed. Authors have the opportunity to withdraw their article, to revise it in response to the reviews, or to publish it without revision. If the authors proceed with publication of their article despite critical comments, readers can clearly see any negative comments along with the names of the reviewers.<ref>http://www.biology-direct.com/info/about/</ref> |
|||
An extension of peer review beyond the date of publication is [[Open Peer Commentary]], whereby expert commentaries are solicited on published articles, and the authors are encouraged to respond. The ''[[British Medical Journal|BMJ]]'''s [[Rapid Responses]]<ref>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1</ref> allow ongoing debate and criticism following publication.<ref>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7347/1171</ref> By 2005, the editors found it necessary to more rigorously enforce the criteria for acceptance of Rapid Responses, to weed out the "bores".<ref>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1284</ref> |
|||
==Peer review of policy== |
|||
The technique of peer review is also used to improve government policy. In particular, the [[European Union]] uses it as a tool in the 'Open Method of Co-ordination' of policies in the fields of employment and social inclusion. |
|||
A programme of peer reviews in [[active labour market policy]]<ref>http://www.almp.org</ref> started in 1999, and was followed in 2004 by one in [[social inclusion]].<ref>http://www.peer-review-social-inclusion.net</ref> Each programme sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a 'host country' lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating 'peer countries' submit comments. The results are published on the web. |
|||
===U.S. government peer review policies=== |
|||
{{main|U.S. Government peer review policies}} |
|||
==History of peer review== |
|||
Peer review has been a touchstone of modern scientific method only since the middle of the twentieth century.<ref>http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm</ref> Before then, its application was lax. For example, [[Albert Einstein]]'s revolutionary "Annus Mirabilis" papers in the 1905 issue of ''[[Annalen der Physik]]'' were not peer-reviewed. The journal's editor in chief (and father of quantum theory), [[Max Planck]], recognized the virtue of publishing such outlandish ideas and simply had the papers published; none of the papers were sent to reviewers. The decision to publish was made exclusively by either the editor in chief, or the co-editor [[Wilhelm Wien]]—both certainly ‘peers’ (who were later to win the [[Nobel prize]] in [[physics]]), but this does not meet the definition of "peer review" as it is currently understood. At the time there was a policy that allowed authors much latitude after their first publication. In a recent editorial in ''Nature'', it was stated that "in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas."<ref>Coping with peer rejection. ''Nature'' 425 (6959), 645 (16 Oct 2003).[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/425645a doi:10.1038/425645a]</ref> |
|||
==Peer review and software development== |
|||
{{main|Software peer review}} |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Objectivity (philosophy)]] |
|||
* [[Academic publishing]] |
|||
* [[Scientific literature]] |
|||
* [[Peer critique]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{ |
{{Reflist|30em}} |
||
==Further reading== |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
*{{Cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Carole J. |last2=Sugimoto |first2=Cassidy R. |author2-link=Cassidy Sugimoto| last3=Zhang |first3=Guo |last4=Cronin |first4=Blaise |date=2013 |title=Bias in peer review |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784 |journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology |language=en |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=2–17 |doi=10.1002/asi.22784}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |journal=International Urogynecology Journal |volume=31 |publication-date=9 December 2019 |pages=481–483 |title=Peer Review: Single-blind, Double-blind, or All the Way-blind? |first=Toni |last=Bazi |year=2020 |issue=3 |doi=10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2|pmid=31820012 |s2cid=208869313 }} |
|||
===General References and Further Reading=== |
|||
*{{cite journal |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America]] |volume=114 |issue=48 |orig-date=Composed October 2017 |publication-date=November 2017 |pages=12708–12713 |editor-first=Susan T. |editor-last=Fiske |editor-link=Susan T. Fiske |title=Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-blind Peer Review |first1=Andrew |last1=Tomkins |first2=Min |last2=Zhang |first3=William D. |last3=Heavlin |year=2017 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1707323114|pmid=29138317 |pmc=5715744 |bibcode=2017PNAS..11412708T |doi-access=free }} |
|||
*Ann C. Wilder ''Editorial Peer Review: its Strengths and Weaknesses'' Medford, NJ: [[American Society for Information Science and Technology]], 2001. ISBN 1573871001 (extensive bibliography) |
|||
*{{cite journal |journal=[[Current Sociology]] |volume=64 |issue=5 |year=2016 |pages=691–698 |title=How Double-blind Peer Review Works and What It Takes To Be A Good Referee |first=Eloisa |last=Martín |doi=10.1177/0011392116656711 |doi-access=free }} |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*{{cite book |last1=Hames |first1=Irene |title=Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice |date=2007 |publisher=[[Blackwell Publishing]] |location=Oxford, UK |isbn=978-1-4051-3159-9}} |
|||
*[[Academic conference]] |
|||
*[[Academic journal]] |
|||
*[[Abstract management]] |
|||
*[[Adversarial review]] |
|||
*[[Cudos]] |
|||
*[[Journal club|Journal Club]] |
|||
*[[Objectivity (philosophy)|Objectivity]] |
|||
*[[Open Peer Commentary]] |
|||
*[[Publication bias]] |
|||
*[[Scholarly method]] |
|||
*[[Sham peer review]] |
|||
*[[Sokal affair]] |
|||
*[[Sternberg peer review controversy]] |
|||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
{{commons category}} |
|||
{{Scholia|topic}} |
|||
*[https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review What is Peer review?] at Elsevier |
|||
{{Academic publishing}} |
|||
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Peer review.ogg|2005-04-02}} |
|||
{{Authority control}} |
|||
===General Discussions and Links=== |
|||
*[http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ Nature peer review debate] June 2006 |
|||
*[http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/peerhome.htm Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication] |
|||
*[http://www.int-res.com/discussion-forums/meps-discussion-forum-2/ Discussion forum about the peer review system] |
|||
*[http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/histcomp/lock-difficult-bal_2/index-lcs.html "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine"] (Bibliography, hosted by [[Eugene Garfield]]) |
|||
===Specific Articles=== |
|||
*[http://www.retrovirology.com/content/3/1/55 Beyond Open Access: Open Discourse, the next great equalizer], (''Retrovirology'' 2006, 3:55) |
|||
*[http://www.aaskolnick.com/naswmav.htm The Maharishi Caper: Or How to Hoodwink Top Medical Journals, The Newsletter of the National Association of Science Writers] |
|||
*[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/21/2786 "Measuring the quality of peer review"] ''Journal of the American Medical Association'' 287: 2786–2790 (2002). |
|||
*[http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2001;volume=47;issue=3;spage=210;epage=4;aulast=Gitanjali Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead] (J Postgrad Med 2001;47:210-4) |
|||
*[http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm Something Rotten at the Core of Science?] (Analysis of US court decision of criteria for scientific evidence) |
|||
*[http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev1.htm Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review] (Journal of Neurobiology 14, No. 2., pp. 95-112 (1983). () |
|||
*[http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/123/9/1964 Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?] (Brain, Vol. 123, No. 9, 1964-1969, September 2000) |
|||
*[http://www.geosociety.org/science/csf/0407gt.htm Science and Politics: An Uneasy Mix] (Reprinted from GSA Today, v. 14, no. 7 (July 2004)) |
|||
*[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=90156666&dopt=Abstract The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation] ( JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1438-41. and comment JAMA. 1990 Dec 26;264(24):3143.) |
|||
*[http://www.thegreatboycott.net/Dissent_in_Science.html Suppressing Dissent in Science] (Lancet Volume 357, Number 9257 03 March 2001) |
|||
*[http://www.tribunes.com/tribune/art96/bere.htm Hampering the progress of science by peer review and by the 'selective' funding system] (Science Tribune - Article - December 1996 ) |
|||
*[http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Suppression-Of-Dissent.htm Suppression of Dissent in Science] (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy V. 7) |
|||
*[http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000385.html Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?] [[Frank J. Tipler]], and discussion board. |
|||
*[http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v192/p305-313/ The peer-review system: time for re-assessment?] (Marine Ecology Progress Series) |
|||
* [[Philip E. Bourne]], [[Alon Korngreen]], [http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110 "Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers"], ''[[PLoS Computational Biology]]'', 2(9):e110, 2006 September. General guidelines for reviewing. |
|||
*[[Stevan Harnad]]: |
|||
**1998: [http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html The Invisible Hand of Peer Review] [[Nature magazine|Nature]] version; [http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/ Exploit Interactive] version |
|||
**1997: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2633/ Learned Inquiry and the Net: The Role of Peer Review, Peer Commentary and Copyright] (Learned Publishing 11(4) pp. 283-292.) |
|||
**1996: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2900/ Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals] (Peek, R. and Newby, G., Eds. , pp. 103-118. MIT Press.) |
|||
**1985: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/3397/ Rational disagreement in peer review] (Science, Technology and Human Values 10 pp. 55-62.) |
|||
**1979: [http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/3387/ Creative disagreement] (The Sciences 19 18 - 20.) |
|||
**1978 [http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eharnad/Temp/Kata/bbs.editorial.html Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) editorial] |
|||
*[http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_transactions/transactions/tpami/freecontent/taskoftheferee.pdf The Task of the Referee] |
|||
[[Category:Academic publishing]] |
|||
[[Category:Scientific method]] |
|||
[[Category:Scientific literature]] |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Peer Review}} |
|||
[[da:Peer-review]] |
|||
[[ |
[[Category:Peer review| ]] |
||
[[Category:Broad-concept articles]] |
|||
[[es:Revisión por pares]] |
|||
[[fr:Comité de lecture]] |
|||
[[id:Penilaian sejawat]] |
|||
[[it:Revisione paritaria]] |
|||
[[he:ביקורת עמיתים]] |
|||
[[hu:Kollegiális lektorálás]] |
|||
[[nl:Collegiale toetsing]] |
|||
[[ja:査読]] |
|||
[[no:Fagfellevurdering]] |
|||
[[pl:Recenzja naukowa]] |
|||
[[pt:Revisão por pares]] |
|||
[[ru:Рецензия]] |
|||
[[simple:Peer review]] |
|||
[[fi:Vertaisarviointi]] |
|||
[[sv:Peer review]] |
|||
[[zh:同行評審]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 20:10, 30 November 2024
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers).[1] It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review. It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments.[2]
Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[3][4][5] It developed over the following centuries with, for example, the journal Nature making it standard practice in 1973. The term "peer review" was first used in the early 1970s.[6] A monument to peer review has been at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow since 2017.[7]
Professional
[edit]Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[8]
A prototype professional peer review process was recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[9]
Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review.[10] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[11] Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[12] law,[13][14] engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[15]
Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.[16][17]
Scholarly
[edit]
Scholarly peer review or academic peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field. Peer review is widely used for helping the academic publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal, a monograph or in the proceedings of an academic conference. If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review.
Academic peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) academic field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals. However, peer review does not prevent publication of invalid research,[18] and as experimentally controlled studies of this process are difficult to arrange, direct evidence that peer review improves the quality of published papers is scarce.[19]Medical
[edit]Medical peer review may be distinguished in four classifications:[20]
- Clinical peer review is a procedure for assessing a patient's involvement with experiences of care. It is a piece of progressing proficient practice assessment and centered proficient practice assessment—significant supporters of supplier credentialing and privileging.[21]
- Peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses.[22][23]
- Scientific peer review of journal articles.
- A secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.[24]
Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.[25][26] The clinical network believes it to be the most ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.[27]
Technical
[edit]In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.[28]
Government policy
[edit]The European Union has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy since 1999.[29] In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion.[30] Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.
The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.[31]
Pedagogical
[edit]Peer review, or student peer assessment, is the method by which editors and writers work together in hopes of helping the author establish and further flesh out and develop their own writing.[32] Peer review is widely used in secondary and post-secondary education as part of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other's work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision.[33] Rather than a means of critiquing each other's work, peer review is often framed as a way to build connection between students and help develop writers' identity.[34] While widely used in English and composition classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines that require writing as part of the curriculum including the social and natural sciences.[35][36]
Peer review in classrooms helps students become more invested in their work, and the classroom environment at large.[37] Understanding how their work is read by a diverse readership before it is graded by the teacher may also help students clarify ideas and understand how to persuasively reach different audience members via their writing. It also gives students professional experience that they might draw on later when asked to review the work of a colleague prior to publication.[38][39] The process can also bolster the confidence of students on both sides of the process. It has been found that students are more positive than negative when reviewing their classmates' writing.[40] Peer review can help students not get discouraged but rather feel determined to improve their writing.[40]
Critics of peer review in classrooms say that it can be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving constructive criticism, or lack of expertise in the writing craft at large.[41] Peer review can be problematic for developmental writers, particularly if students view their writing as inferior to others in the class as they may be unwilling to offer suggestions or ask other writers for help.[42] Peer review can impact a student's opinion of themselves as well as others as sometimes students feel a personal connection to the work they have produced, which can also make them feel reluctant to receive or offer criticism.[34] Teachers using peer review as an assignment can lead to rushed-through feedback by peers, using incorrect praise or criticism, thus not allowing the writer or the editor to get much out of the activity.[12] As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the class, or focus on specific areas of feedback during the peer review process.[43] Instructors may also experiment with in-class peer review vs. peer review as homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning management systems online. Students that are older can give better feedback to their peers, getting more out of peer review, but it is still a method used in classrooms to help students young and old learn how to revise.[2] With evolving and changing technology, peer review will develop as well. New tools could help alter the process of peer review.[44]
Peer seminar
[edit]Peer seminar is a method that involves a speaker that presents ideas to an audience that also acts as a "contest".[45] To further elaborate, there are multiple speakers that are called out one at a time and given an amount of time to present the topic that they have researched. Each speaker may or may not talk about the same topic but each speaker has something to gain or lose which can foster a competitive atmosphere.[45] This approach allows speakers to present in a more personal tone while trying to appeal to the audience while explaining their topic.
Peer seminars may be somewhat similar to what conference speakers do, however, there is more time to present their points, and speakers can be interrupted by audience members to provide questions and feedback upon the topic or how well the speaker did in presenting their topic.[45]
Peer review in writing
[edit]Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. Peer review in writing is a pivotal component among various peer review mechanisms, often spearheaded by educators and involving student participation, particularly in academic settings. It constitutes a fundamental process in academic and professional writing, serving as a systematic means to ensure the quality, effectiveness, and credibility of scholarly work. However, despite its widespread use, it is one of the most scattered, inconsistent, and ambiguous practices associated with writing instruction.[46] Many scholars questioning its effectiveness and specific methodologies. Critics of peer review in classrooms express concerns about its ineffectiveness due to students' lack of practice in giving constructive criticism or their limited expertise in the writing craft overall.
Critiques of peer review
[edit]Academic peer review has faced considerable criticism, with many studies highlighting inherent issues in the peer review process.
The editorial peer review process has been found to be strongly biased against ‘negative studies,’ i.e. studies that do not work. This then biases the information base of medicine. Journals become biased against negative studies when values come into play. “Who wants to read something that doesn’t work?” asks Richard Smith in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. “That’s boring.”
This is also particularly evident in university classrooms, where the most common source of writing feedback during student years often comes from teachers, whose comments are often highly valued. Students may become influenced to provide research in line with the professor’s viewpoints, because of the teacher’s position of high authority. The effectiveness of feedback largely stems from its high authority. Benjamin Keating, in his article "A Good Development Thing: A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing," conducted a longitudinal study comparing two groups of students (one majoring in writing and one not) to explore students' perceptions of authority. This research, involving extensive analysis of student texts, concludes that students majoring in non-writing fields tend to undervalue mandatory peer review in class, while those majoring in writing value classmates' comments more. This reflects that peer review feedback has a certain threshold, and effective peer review requires a certain level of expertise. For non-professional writers, peer review feedback may be overlooked, thereby affecting its effectiveness.[47]
Elizabeth Ellis Miller, Cameron Mozafari, Justin Lohr and Jessica Enoch state, "While peer review is an integral part of writing classrooms, students often struggle to effectively engage in it." The authors illustrate some reasons for the inefficiency of peer review based on research conducted during peer review sessions in university classrooms:
- Lack of Training: Students and even some faculty members may not have received sufficient training to provide constructive feedback. Without proper guidance on what to look for and how to provide helpful comments, peer reviewers may find it challenging to offer meaningful insights.
- Limited Engagement: Students may participate in peer review sessions with minimal enthusiasm or involvement, viewing them as obligatory tasks rather than valuable learning opportunities. This lack of investment can result in superficial feedback that fails to address underlying issues in the writing.
- Time Constraints: Instructors often allocate limited time for peer review activities during class sessions, which may not be adequate for thorough reviews of peers' work. Consequently, feedback may be rushed or superficial, lacking the depth required for meaningful improvement.
This research demonstrates that besides issues related to expertise, numerous objective factors contribute to students' poor performance in peer review sessions, resulting in feedback from peer reviewers that may not effectively assist authors. Additionally, this study highlights the influence of emotions in peer review sessions, suggesting that both peer reviewers and authors cannot completely eliminate emotions when providing and receiving feedback. This can lead to peer reviewers and authors approaching the feedback with either positive or negative attitudes towards the text, resulting in selective or biased feedback and review, further impacting their ability to objectively evaluate the article. It implies that subjective emotions may also affect the effectiveness of peer review feedback.[48]
Pamela Bedore and Brian O’Sullivan also hold a skeptical view of peer review in most writing contexts. The authors conclude, based on comparing different forms of peer review after systematic training at two universities, that "the crux is that peer review is not just about improving writing but about helping authors achieve their writing vision." Feedback from the majority of non-professional writers during peer review sessions often tends to be superficial, such as simple grammar corrections and questions. This precisely reflects the implication in the conclusion that the focus is only on improving writing skills. Meaningful peer review involves understanding the author's writing intent, posing valuable questions and perspectives, and guiding the author to achieve their writing goals.[49]
Comparison and improvement
[edit]Magda Tigchelaar compares peer review with self-assessment through an experiment that divided students into three groups: self-assessment, peer review, and no review. Across four writing projects, she observed changes in each group, with surprisingly results showing significant improvement only in the self-assessment group. The author's analysis suggests that self-assessment allows individuals to clearly understand the revision goals at each stage, as the author is the most familiar with their own writing. Thus, self-checking naturally follows a systematic and planned approach to revision. In contrast, the effectiveness of peer review is often limited due to the lack of structured feedback, characterized by scattered, meaningless summaries and evaluations that fail to meet author's expectations for revising their work.[50]
Stephanie Conner and Jennifer Gray highlight the value of most students' feedback during peer review. They argue that many peer review sessions fail to meet students' expectations, as students, even as reviewers themselves, feel uncertain about providing constructive feedback due to their lack of confidence in their own writing. The authors further offer numerous improvement strategies across various dimensions, such as course content and specific implementation steps. For instance, the peer review process can be segmented into groups, where students present the papers to be reviewed, while other group members take notes and analyze them. Then, the review scope can be expanded to the entire class. This widens the review sources and further enhances the level of professionalism.[51]
With evolving and changing technology, peer review is also expected to evolve. New tools have the potential to transform the peer review process. Mimi Li discusses the effectiveness and feedback of an online peer review software used in their freshman writing class. Unlike traditional peer review methods commonly used in classrooms, the online peer review software offers a plethora of tools for editing articles, along with comprehensive guidance. For instance, it lists numerous questions peer reviewers can ask and allows for various comments to be added to the selected text. Based on observations over the course of a semester, students showed varying degrees of improvement in their writing skills and grades after using the online peer review software. Additionally, they highly praised the technology of online peer review.[52]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "peer review process". National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms. Retrieved 5 July 2022.
- ^ a b Magnifico, Alecia Marie; Woodard, Rebecca; McCarthey, Sarah (1 June 2019). "Teachers as co-authors of student writing: How teachers' initiating texts influence response and revision in an online space". Computers and Composition. 52: 107–131. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.005. ISSN 8755-4615. S2CID 86438229.
- ^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Archived from the original on 16 January 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
- ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1: 0. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001. S2CID 186211404.
- ^ Boas Hall, Marie (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bibcode:2002heol.book.....B. ISBN 978-0-19-851053-6.
- ^ Wills, Matthew (21 July 2024). "The History of Peer Review Is More Interesting Than You Think". JSTOR Daily. Retrieved 29 July 2024.
- ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (26 May 2017). "Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22060. ISSN 1476-4687.
- ^ Schimanski, Lesley A.; Alperin, Juan Pablo (2018). "The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future". F1000Research. 7: 1605. doi:10.12688/f1000research.16493.1. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 6325612. PMID 30647909.
- ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
- ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Annals of Internal Medicine. 118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628. S2CID 45863865. Archived from the original on 21 July 2012.
- ^ Milgrom P; Weinstein P; Ratener P; Read WA; Morrison K (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". American Journal of Public Health. 68 (4): 394–401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394. PMC 1653950. PMID 645987.
- ^ a b "AICPA Peer Review Program Manual". American Institute of CPAs. Archived from the original on 28 October 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
- ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. 12 July 2007. Archived from the original on 14 October 2010.
- ^ "Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Reviews and Ratings". Martindale. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
- ^ "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. 6 February 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
- ^ Sims, Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18 (2): 105–108. doi:10.2134/jae1989.0105. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
- ^ Liu, Jianguo; Thorndike Pysarchik, Dawn; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (9): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
- ^ Kupferschmidt, Kai (14 August 2018). "Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aav1079.
- ^ Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. PMID 24052283.
- ^ "Review by Peers" (PDF). A Guide for Professional, Clinical and Administrative Processes. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 October 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
- ^ Deyo-Svendsen, Mark E.; Phillips, Michael R.; Albright, Jill K.; Schilling, Keith A.; Palmer, Karl B. (October–December 2016). "A Systematic Approach to Clinical Peer Review in a Critical Access Hospital". Quality Management in Healthcare. 25 (4): 213–218. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000113. ISSN 1063-8628. PMC 5054974. PMID 27749718.
- ^ "Medschool.ucsf.edu" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 August 2010.
- ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educator. 23 (6): 17–20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106.
- ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142. S2CID 42567486.
- ^ Snelson, Elizabeth A. (2010). Physician's Guide to Medical Staff Organization Bylaws (PDF). American Medical Association. p. 131. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 2011.
- ^ "Medical Peer Review". American Medical Association. Archived from the original on 6 March 2010.
- ^ Felman, Adam (29 March 2019). "Peer review: What is it and why do we do it?". Medical News Today. Archived from the original on 28 August 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
- ^ NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (PDF). NASA. December 2007. SP-610S. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
- ^ "Mutual Learning Programme – Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion". European Commission. Archived from the original on 28 March 2023.
- ^ "Peer Review in Social Protection and Social Inclusion and Assessment in Social Inclusion". peer-review-social-inclusion.eu. Archived from the original on 18 July 2012. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Archived from the original on 30 March 2017. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
- ^ Söderlund, Lars; Wells, Jaclyn (2019). "A Study of the Practices and Responsibilities of Scholarly Peer Review in Rhetoric and Composition". College Composition and Communication. 71 (1): 117–144. doi:10.58680/ccc201930297. JSTOR 26821317. S2CID 219259301.
- ^ Søndergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A. (2012). "Collaborative learning through formative peer review: pedagogy, programs and potential". Computer Science Education. 22 (4): 343–367. Bibcode:2012CSEd...22..343S. doi:10.1080/08993408.2012.728041. ISSN 0899-3408. S2CID 40784250. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
- ^ a b Mundy, Robert; Sugerman, Rachel (Fall 2017). ""What Can You Possibly Know About My Experience?": Toward a Practice of Self-Reflection and Multicultural Competence". The Peer Review. 1 (2).
- ^ Guilford, William H. (1 September 2001). "Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing". Advances in Physiology Education. 25 (3): 167–175. doi:10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167. ISSN 1043-4046. PMID 11824193. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
- ^ Baker, Kimberly M. (1 November 2016). "Peer review as a strategy for improving students' writing process". Active Learning in Higher Education. 17 (3): 179–192. doi:10.1177/1469787416654794. ISSN 1469-7874. S2CID 49527249.
- ^ Wigglesworth, Gillian; Storch, Neomy (2012). "What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback". Journal of Second Language Writing. 21 (4): 364–374. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005.
- ^ "Benefits of Peer Review". www.southwestern.edu. Archived from the original on 19 August 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
- ^ Kern, Vinícius M.; Possamai, Osmar; Selig, Paulo M.; Pacheco, Roberto C. dos S.; de Souza, Gilberto C.; Rautenberg, Sandro; Lemos, Renata T. da S. (2009). "Growing a peer review culture among graduate students". In Tatnall, A.; Jones, A. (eds.). Education and Technology for a Better World. pp. 388–397. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03115-1_41. hdl:10536/DRO/DU:30082218. ISBN 978-3-642-03114-4.
- ^ a b Anna Wärnsby; Asko Kauppinen; Laura Aull; Djuddah Leijen; Joe Moxley (2018). "Affective Language in Student Peer Reviews: Exploring Data from Three Institutional Contexts". Journal of Academic Writing. 8 (1): 28–53. doi:10.18552/joaw.v8i1.429. hdl:2043/26718.
- ^ "What Are the Disadvantages of Student Peer Review? | Synonym". classroom.synonym.com. Archived from the original on 30 September 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
- ^ Gere, Anne Ruggles; Silver, Naomi, eds. (2019). Developing Writers in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-13124-2.
- ^ "Conducting Peer Review – Writers Workshop". Archived from the original on 20 August 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
- ^ Reese, Ashley; Rachamalla, Rajeev; Rudniy, Alex; Aull, Laura; Eubanks, David (2018). "Contemporary Peer Review: Construct Modeling, Measurement Foundations, and the Future of Digital Learning" (PDF). The Journal of Writing Analytics. 2: 96–137. doi:10.37514/JWA-J.2018.2.1.05.
- ^ a b c Aguilar, Marta (2004). "The peer seminar, a spoken research process genre". Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 3: 55–72. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00043-2.
- ^ Armstrong, Sonya L.; Paulson, Eric J. (1 May 2008). "Whither 'Peer Review'?: Terminology Matters for the Writing Classroom". Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 35 (4): 398–407. doi:10.58680/tetyc20086557. ProQuest 220963655.
- ^ Keating, Benjamin (2019), Gere, Anne Ruggles (ed.), "'A Good Development Thing': A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing", Developing Writers in Higher Education, A Longitudinal Study, University of Michigan Press, pp. 56–80, ISBN 978-0-472-13124-2, JSTOR j.ctvdjrpt3.7
- ^ Miller, Elizabeth Ellis; Mozafari, Cameron; Lohr, Justin; Enoch, Jessica (February 2023). "Thinking about Feeling: The Roles of Emotion in Reflective Writing". College Composition and Communication. 74 (3): 485–521. doi:10.58680/ccc202332364. ProQuest 2802085546.
- ^ "Writing centers go to class: Peer review (of our) workshops" (PDF).
- ^ Tigchelaar, Magda (1 January 2016). "The Impact of Peer Review on Writing Development in French as a Foreign Language". Journal of Response to Writing. 2 (2). ISSN 2575-9809.
- ^ Conner, Stephanie; Gray, Jennifer (15 April 2023). "Resisting the Deficit Model: Embedding Writing Center Tutors during Peer Review in Writing-Intensive Courses". Journal of Response to Writing. 9 (1). ISSN 2575-9809.
- ^ Li, Mimi (1 January 2018). "Online Peer Review Using Turnitin PeerMark". Journal of Response to Writing. 4 (2). ISSN 2575-9809.
Further reading
[edit]- Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). "Bias in peer review". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1): 2–17. doi:10.1002/asi.22784.
- Bazi, Toni (2020). "Peer Review: Single-blind, Double-blind, or All the Way-blind?". International Urogynecology Journal. 31 (3) (published 9 December 2019): 481–483. doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2. PMID 31820012. S2CID 208869313.
- Tomkins, Andrew; Zhang, Min; Heavlin, William D. (2017) [Composed October 2017]. Fiske, Susan T. (ed.). "Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-blind Peer Review". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 114 (48) (published November 2017): 12708–12713. Bibcode:2017PNAS..11412708T. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114. PMC 5715744. PMID 29138317.
- Martín, Eloisa (2016). "How Double-blind Peer Review Works and What It Takes To Be A Good Referee". Current Sociology. 64 (5): 691–698. doi:10.1177/0011392116656711.
- Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3159-9.
External links
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Peer review.
Scholia has a topic profile for Peer review.
- What is Peer review? at Elsevier
