Priority criteria in peer review of scientific articles
- 498 Downloads
Number of researchers, journals and articles has significantly increased in the last few years and peer review is still the most reliable instrument to sort out innovative, valuable, scientifically sound information from the pool of submitted results. Editors and publishers join their efforts to improve peer review process and to be able to do so properly, they need “field information” from contributors. Editorial board of the Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society performed its own survey to find out what reviewers recognize as priority criteria in manuscript evaluation and whether the professional background (title, number of years in research or experience in reviewing) influences these criteria. Most reviewers declared that they consider peer review as an essential component of the scientific professionalism. Scientific contribution and originality were the most important criteria in the evaluation of papers. Most reviewers preferred to see conclusions completely supported by experimental data, without additional speculations. Although there were no large differences between early stage and experienced researchers, early stage researchers and less experienced reviewers used grade 5 (indicating the highest priority) much more often in their evaluation of priority criteria than experienced researchers and/or reviewers, suggesting possible evolution of tolerance with experience.
KeywordsScientific review Criteria Reviewer background
Mathematics Subject Classification62-07
This research work was inspired by and is part of scientific activities in the COST Action TD1306 “New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE)”.
- Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., et al. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 56. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=22174702
- Bornmann, L., Nast, I., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics, 77(3), 415–432. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ernst, E., & Resch, K. L. (1994). Reviewer bias: A blinded experimental study. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 124(2), 178–182. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8051481
- Godlee, F., Gale, C. R., & Martyn, C. N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 237–240. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Guraya, S. Y. (2014). Accuracy of references in scholarly journals: An analysis of 450 references in ten biomedical journals. European Science Editing, 40(4), 88–90. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84920670315&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
- Hesman Saey, T. (2015). Is redoing scientific research the best way to find truth? Science News 187(2), January 13. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/redoing-scientific-research-best-way-find-truth
- Reuters, T. (2015). IP & Science. http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/
- Vintzileos, A. M., Ananth, C. V., Odibo, A. O., Chauhan, S. P., Smulian, J. C., & Oyelese, Y. (2014). The relationship between a reviewer’s recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 211(6), 703.e1–e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yalow, R. S. (1977). Radioimmunoassay: A probe for fine structure of biologic systems. Nobel Lecture. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1977/yalow-lecture.pdf