Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies

Peh, Wilfred C. G.

doi:10.11622/smedj.2021139

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The frequency of prominent retractions, particularly in esteemed scientific journals, reveals the shortcomings of traditional prepublication peer review in identifying fraudulent or unethical studies. 38 39 On the other hand, these retractions emphasize the effectiveness of the publishing enterprise. Editors fulfill their duties, act responsibly, and retract inaccurate and misleading articles.…”

Section: How Can Journals and Editors Prevent Scientific Misconduct?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

Zhaksylyk,

Zimba,

Yessirkepov

et al. 2023

J Korean Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society’s well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

show abstract

Section: How Can Journals and Editors Prevent Scientific Misconduct?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

Zhaksylyk,

Zimba,

Yessirkepov

et al. 2023

J Korean Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Peer review has become an established part of the scientific publication process and is used by most journals worldwide. 2,3 Despite its widespread use, several deficiencies of the peer review process have been noted, such as the time burden on researchers, high costs, lengthy duration, and biases. [4][5][6][7] Notwithstanding these deficiencies, a majority of researchers consider peer review important to ensure the quality and integrity of science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For many decades, peer review has been the key process on which the scientific community has relied to ensure that the reporting of research findings meets minimum quality standards . Peer review has become an established part of the scientific publication process and is used by most journals worldwide . Despite its widespread use, several deficiencies of the peer review process have been noted, such as the time burden on researchers, high costs, lengthy duration, and biases .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals

Geldsetzer,

Heemann,

Tikka

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceHigh-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated.ResultsIn this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (&lt;200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]).Conclusion and RelevanceIn this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.

show abstract

“…2 Over that time the nature of peer review has evolved considerably, with contemporary models of peer review being quite different to those one would have been exposed to when submitting to Philosophical Transactions four centuries ago. 3 In the post-World War 2 'modern era' of publishing, multiple models and iterations of peer review have emerged, with distinctive differences present within and between disciplines. 3 Single-blind review, double-blind, open, transparent, collaborative, dynamic and post-publication review are but some of the approaches seen in contemporary publishing; all have arguable benefits and disbenefits, all are prone to error, and none have been proven objectively to be superior to another.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 In the post-World War 2 ‘modern era’ of publishing, multiple models and iterations of peer review have emerged, with distinctive differences present within and between disciplines. 3 Single-blind review, double-blind, open, transparent, collaborative, dynamic and post-publication review are but some of the approaches seen in contemporary publishing; all have arguable benefits and disbenefits, all are prone to error, and none have been proven objectively to be superior to another. 1 Arguments largely lie in the eye of the beholder, and are often grounded in personal experience and preference rather than empirical fact.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%