Limits...
Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals.

Saeidnia S, Abdollahi M - Daru (2015)

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Medicinal Plants Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1417614411, Iran. saeidnia_s@tums.ac.ir.

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Referable to the elaboration of science and specialization, and besides the impulse to publish among academics, the number of articles has increased, so journals need to select the highest quality manuscripts from the large number of submissions for publication... In some cases, editors reject articles after in-house review... However, most journals do not have a large staff and therefore send almost everything to external reviewers... The general routine in most journals is that the editor in chief or the editorial team appraise all submissions, and then separate them into suitable or unsuitable manuscripts regarding the scope and strategy defined previously for the journal... Because of this problem, the range of reviewers is reduced and the journals may not have enough choices to replace reviewers who perform poorly or slower... Ideally, peer review should be a highly objective, honest, and consistent procedure, in which writers and editors can trust... Thus, to reduce the adverse effects of peer review, journals and editors have adopted systems such as single or two blinded review models, clarifying the peer review process on the web, as well as training reviewers... The reviewers should be trained to report objectively with more attention to context... This is specially important in bio-medical specialty and pharmaceutical journals, as the results of bias might be harmful... Furthermore, it was observed that self-citations existed generally in the review articles which were recommended for revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) compared to rejection (17/112; 15%; p < 0.001)... The authors concluded that the percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others’ work (15 of 306; 5%; p < 0.001)... Basic principles, to which peer reviewers should adhere, described by the COPE and summarized in Table 1... Decreasing the faults and avoiding such errors is not possible, whereas it is possible to improve reviewers by pursuing efficient training to teach principles and ethical guidance.

Show MeSH
Some important criteria and parameters, which good reviewers should follow[3].
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4358715&req=5

Fig1: Some important criteria and parameters, which good reviewers should follow[3].

Mentions: When a reviewer (external or internal) exhibits a good or acceptable review, his or her advice can influence the editor’s decision on selection of the best manuscripts for publishing. In addition, a critical review process is able to make a submission better and add to its transparency and accuracy for the readers. Today, the query is: “Who is a good reviewer?” or “What is a good peer review process?” According to a literature review on this topic and also personal experience, there are a bit of criteria by which a good reviewer is identified. Some of these are summarized in Figure 1 [3]. Likewise, a schematic guidance that reviewers can generally use is indicated in Figure 2. Ideally, peer review should be a highly objective, honest, and consistent procedure, in which writers and editors can trust. Thus, to reduce the adverse effects of peer review, journals and editors have adopted systems such as single or two blinded review models, clarifying the peer review process on the web, as well as training reviewers [4].Figure 1


Peer review processes and related issues in scholarly journals.

Saeidnia S, Abdollahi M - Daru (2015)

Some important criteria and parameters, which good reviewers should follow[3].
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4358715&req=5

Fig1: Some important criteria and parameters, which good reviewers should follow[3].
Mentions: When a reviewer (external or internal) exhibits a good or acceptable review, his or her advice can influence the editor’s decision on selection of the best manuscripts for publishing. In addition, a critical review process is able to make a submission better and add to its transparency and accuracy for the readers. Today, the query is: “Who is a good reviewer?” or “What is a good peer review process?” According to a literature review on this topic and also personal experience, there are a bit of criteria by which a good reviewer is identified. Some of these are summarized in Figure 1 [3]. Likewise, a schematic guidance that reviewers can generally use is indicated in Figure 2. Ideally, peer review should be a highly objective, honest, and consistent procedure, in which writers and editors can trust. Thus, to reduce the adverse effects of peer review, journals and editors have adopted systems such as single or two blinded review models, clarifying the peer review process on the web, as well as training reviewers [4].Figure 1

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Medicinal Plants Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1417614411, Iran. saeidnia_s@tums.ac.ir.

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Referable to the elaboration of science and specialization, and besides the impulse to publish among academics, the number of articles has increased, so journals need to select the highest quality manuscripts from the large number of submissions for publication... In some cases, editors reject articles after in-house review... However, most journals do not have a large staff and therefore send almost everything to external reviewers... The general routine in most journals is that the editor in chief or the editorial team appraise all submissions, and then separate them into suitable or unsuitable manuscripts regarding the scope and strategy defined previously for the journal... Because of this problem, the range of reviewers is reduced and the journals may not have enough choices to replace reviewers who perform poorly or slower... Ideally, peer review should be a highly objective, honest, and consistent procedure, in which writers and editors can trust... Thus, to reduce the adverse effects of peer review, journals and editors have adopted systems such as single or two blinded review models, clarifying the peer review process on the web, as well as training reviewers... The reviewers should be trained to report objectively with more attention to context... This is specially important in bio-medical specialty and pharmaceutical journals, as the results of bias might be harmful... Furthermore, it was observed that self-citations existed generally in the review articles which were recommended for revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) compared to rejection (17/112; 15%; p < 0.001)... The authors concluded that the percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others’ work (15 of 306; 5%; p < 0.001)... Basic principles, to which peer reviewers should adhere, described by the COPE and summarized in Table 1... Decreasing the faults and avoiding such errors is not possible, whereas it is possible to improve reviewers by pursuing efficient training to teach principles and ethical guidance.

Show MeSH