Peer review is a process in which a scholar’s written work is carefully and critically evaluated by other scholars in their field (i.e., their peers), to ensure scientific quality and integrity. A peer reviewer’s goal should not be to tear down another researcher, but to help them strengthen their work.
A peer reviewer does not function as a copyeditor, marking grammatical errors or suggesting alternate word choices. Instead, they look at the bigger picture, addressing questions such as:
Is the subject of the article within the journal’s stated scope, and is the subject interesting and/or useful to the journal’s target audience?
Has the author chosen sound research methods that make sense, and are they clearly explained?
Are the findingsResultsThe section of a research article where researchers share the results from the research. This section takes the results and directly connects them to the research questions or hypotheses posed at the start of the article. Also can be called “Findings.” explained clearly and fully, without evidence that the author has presented only selective pieces of data that support their preferred conclusionConclusionThe end of a research article that wraps up the work presented. A conclusion can also be a spot to discuss limitations of the research or future avenues for this line of research. (a problematic practice called cherry-picking)?
Does the author describe implications and conclusions which logically follow from the findings, without overstating significance or causation?
Is the writing clear and easy to read, and is the narrative logically organized?
Is the reader left with critical unanswered questions about the study?
Has the author addressed the “so what?” factor, so that the reader clearly understands why they should care about the study or its findings?
“Boston Rally for Science” by AnubisAbyss on Flickr.
The peer reviewer provides informed feedback as another scholar in the field, but ultimately, only an editor is responsible for deciding whether a submission is accepted or declined. The peer reviewer’s feedback informs the editor in making this decision, along with the editor’s own careful review and knowledge of the journal’s scope and mission.
Although peer review is widely relied upon in scholarly publishing, the system is not without criticism. Little to no empirical testing has been done to prove that peer review is effective for identifying errors or screening and improving scholarly papers. Bias may arise from various factors, including but not limited to, race, nationality, language, gender, perceived prestige of an author’s institution, formal and informal affiliation of the reviewer and author, and a submission’s content itself. Confirmation bias may also be an issue, as reviewers may favor work which reinforces their own beliefs and negatively respond to work which challenges their existing beliefs.
Most scholarly reviews are conducted by a minority of academics, which can exacerbate existing bias in the system. Additionally, due to the frequent shortage of knowledgeable and willing reviewers, papers may be reviewed by people lacking sufficient expertise, and consequently, lower-quality papers may be published. Furthermore, peer review may delay dissemination of essential knowledge and may stifle creativity in research.
Consider the following reflection questions. If you would like to write out your responses, use one of your free write pages in your workbook.
How do you prefer to receive feedback?
What is the most helpful kind of feedback and how do you prefer to respond to it?
Hope, Aluko A., and Munro, Cindy L. “Criticism and Judgment: A Critical Look at Scientific Peer Review.” American Journal of Critical Care 28, no. 4 (2019): 242–245. doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019152
Kelly, Jacalyn, Sadeghieh, Tara, and Adeli Khosrow. “Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.” EJIFCC 25, no. 3 (2014): 227–243. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27683470.
Lee, Carole J., Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Zhang, Guo, and Blaise Cronin,. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 1 (2013): 2-17. doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
Defining Peer Review
Peer review is a process in which a scholar’s written work is carefully and critically evaluated by other scholars in their field (i.e., their peers), to ensure scientific quality and integrity. A peer reviewer’s goal should not be to tear down another researcher, but to help them strengthen their work.
A peer reviewer does not function as a copyeditor, marking grammatical errors or suggesting alternate word choices. Instead, they look at the bigger picture, addressing questions such as:
The peer reviewer provides informed feedback as another scholar in the field, but ultimately, only an editor is responsible for deciding whether a submission is accepted or declined. The peer reviewer’s feedback informs the editor in making this decision, along with the editor’s own careful review and knowledge of the journal’s scope and mission.
Although peer review is widely relied upon in scholarly publishing, the system is not without criticism. Little to no empirical testing has been done to prove that peer review is effective for identifying errors or screening and improving scholarly papers. Bias may arise from various factors, including but not limited to, race, nationality, language, gender, perceived prestige of an author’s institution, formal and informal affiliation of the reviewer and author, and a submission’s content itself. Confirmation bias may also be an issue, as reviewers may favor work which reinforces their own beliefs and negatively respond to work which challenges their existing beliefs.
Most scholarly reviews are conducted by a minority of academics, which can exacerbate existing bias in the system. Additionally, due to the frequent shortage of knowledgeable and willing reviewers, papers may be reviewed by people lacking sufficient expertise, and consequently, lower-quality papers may be published. Furthermore, peer review may delay dissemination of essential knowledge and may stifle creativity in research.
Consider the following reflection questions. If you would like to write out your responses, use one of your free write pages in your workbook.
Topic 2 References
“Bias in Peer Review.” Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE). October 2021. https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/bias-peer-review
Gardner, Carolyn Caffrey. “Navigating Peer Review from the Other Side.” The Librarian Parlor. April 11, 2018. https://libparlor.com/2018/04/11/navigating-peer-review-from-the-other-side/.
Hicks, Alison. “‘I Wish I Had Known That!’ Advice from the Field, A Librarian Parlor Series Part III.” The Librarian Parlor. March 14, 2018. https://libparlor.com/2018/03/14/i-wish-i-had-known-that-advice-from-the-field-a-librarian-parlor-series-part-iii/.
Hope, Aluko A., and Munro, Cindy L. “Criticism and Judgment: A Critical Look at Scientific Peer Review.” American Journal of Critical Care 28, no. 4 (2019): 242–245. doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019152
Kelly, Jacalyn, Sadeghieh, Tara, and Adeli Khosrow. “Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.” EJIFCC 25, no. 3 (2014): 227–243. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27683470.
Lee, Carole J., Sugimoto, Cassidy R., Zhang, Guo, and Blaise Cronin,. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 1 (2013): 2-17. doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784