Conducting Proper Peer Review for a Journal

Introduction

Proper and rigorous peer review is essential to the quality and validity of scientific publications. As the established method of validating the author's work, it is essential to the continued growth of knowledge. Prepublication review of papers submitted to scientific journals has become nearly universal. ¹ Furthermore, the traditional peer-reviewing process has become editorial policy in most online journals.

As defined by the World Association of Medical Editors, “a peer reviewed biomedical journal is one that regularly obtains advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are not part of the journal's editorial staff.” ² With the ever expanding number—a near explosion—of papers submitted to an increasing array of journals, editors are constantly recruiting new peer reviewers. However, many people called upon to conduct reviews may be unfamiliar with the requirements and expectations of the journal. ³

Training in the peer-reviewing process is rarely included in the professional education of physicians, scientists, and others who may be called upon. Thus, it has been recommended that those who volunteer to review papers receive training in proper journal peer reviewing. ⁴

History of Peer Reviewing

Spier ⁵ reviewed the history of peer review, beginning with the Syrian Ali al Rahwi (854–931 CE). Early peer reviewing was post publication. It was not until 1752 when the Royal Society of London assumed editorial responsibility for its journal Philosophical Transactions that the process of peer review that we know today became codified. According to Kronick, ⁶ “in the broadest sense of the term, peer review can be said to have existed ever since people began to identify and communicate what they thought was new knowledge.” Some have opined that peer review is a flawed process—that it is time-consuming, expensive, inconsistent, and not free of bias. ⁷ Concerned with failure to recognize instances of scientific misconduct, some have questioned the value of peer review. ⁸ Clearly, the peer-review process can be improved.

Recent Efforts to Improve Peer Reviewing

A number of excellent references are available to guide reviewers in conducting a review.^9,10 In recent years, several study groups have designed reporting and reviewer guidelines to help researchers and reviewers to improve and enhance the quality of published reports. Of particular note are CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), ¹¹ STROBE (Strengthening the reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), ¹² STARD (Standards for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy), ¹³ QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies), ¹⁴ and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). ¹⁵ Each of these provides checklists/flow diagrams tailored to the particular area of study. An increasing number of journals are referring authors and reviewers to these sites.

While peer reviews and journal editors may wish to incorporate the procedures developed for categorical manuscripts, a general process and procedure may be useful for peer reviewers and should also be useful for post publication review by readers (see Table 1).

Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Accepting a request to review a manuscript entails awareness of one's role, responsibilities, and rights as a reviewer. Once you accept the role to review, be earnest about delivering on time. It is better to decline a review than to promise and not deliver. In its Editorial Policy Statement, Responsibilities and Rights of Peer Reviewers, the Council of Science Editors clearly describes the reviewer's responsibility to journals and to the scientific community and the rights of the reviewer to be informed of the outcome of the review. ¹⁶

General Guidance to a Peer Reviewer

Source: Adapted from ACS Style Guide. ¹⁹

Conclusion

To be asked to volunteer as a peer reviewer is an honor and recognizes one's expertise and competence in the field. Indeed, the quality of your review offers glimpses into the quality of work you do in your professional sphere. It can be a valuable, rewarding experience. Using general or specific guidelines will ensure that professional reviews will be helpful to the author, the editor, and ultimately to the readers.