Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers

Abstract

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

“…Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study.…”

Medical Humanities and Its Role in Shaping Ethics in Medical Graduates

“…Reading great works can enhance language skills and make the physician a better communicator. Researchers and physicians alike are presently turning to social media for the ethical promotion of their work [18]. Exposure to…”

Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis

“… 6 However, mainly thanks to the Publons initiative, more and more researchers are being recognised for their contributions to peer review. 7 The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has stressed the peer review process 8 and might be the refining fire that forges the next generation of peer reviewers. A peer reviewer, who is below par, may disrupt the trust that underlies this privileged gate-keeping function with some offhand remark.…”

“… 4 The same Publons platform provides a unique opportunity to explore the reviewing experiences and capacities of these nations. 7 Publons was initially launched to provide credit for reviewers. However, it has expanded laterally and now also includes editorial records.…”