Teaching undergraduates the process of peer review: learning by doing

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. K. Rangachari
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Student Responses ◽  
Active Approach ◽  
Stage 4 ◽  
Stage Process ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Stage 1

An active approach allowed undergraduates in Health Sciences to learn the dynamics of peer review at first hand. A four-stage process was used. In stage 1, students formed self-selected groups to explore specific issues. In stage 2, each group posted their interim reports online on a specific date. Each student read all the other reports and prepared detailed critiques. In stage 3, each report was discussed at sessions where the lead discussant was selected at random. All students participated in the peer review process. The written critiques were collated and returned to each group, who were asked to resubmit their revised reports within 2 wk. In stage 4, final submissions accompanied by rebuttals were graded. Student responses to a questionnaire were highly positive. They recognized the individual steps in the standard peer review, appreciated the complexities involved, and got a first-hand experience of some of the inherent variabilities involved. The absence of formal presentations and the opportunity to read each other's reports permitted them to study issues in greater depth.

scholarly journals The Problem with Peer Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bård Smedsrød ◽  
Erik Lieungh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Individual Researcher ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Publishing Houses ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The University ◽  
Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

scholarly journals Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer‐Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Gaudino ◽  
N. Bryce Robinson ◽  
Antonino Di Franco ◽  
Irbaz Hameed ◽  
Ajita Naik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rejection Rate ◽  
Unique Identifier ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Cost

Background Quality of the peer‐review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer‐review process of biomedical manuscripts. Methods and Results All randomized trials comparing different peer‐review interventions at author‐, reviewer‐, and/or editor‐level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention‐modified peer‐review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer‐review process. Five‐hundred and seventy‐five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author‐level, 16 at reviewer‐level, and 3 at editor‐level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer‐review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta‐analysis, reviewer‐level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author‐ and editor‐level interventions did not significantly impact peer‐review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for duration). Conclusions Modifications of the traditional peer‐review process at reviewer‐level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910.

scholarly journals Quantifying the Volunteer Effort of Scientific Peer Reviewing

2012 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Golden ◽  
David M. Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Individual Contributions ◽  
Survey Review ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Monthly Weather Review

A survey of 310 reviewers for Monthly Weather Review addresses how much time and effort goes into the peer-review process and provides insight into how reviewers function. Using these data, the individual and collective contributions of volunteer peer reviewers to the peer-review process can be determined. Individually, respondents to the survey review an average of 2 manuscripts a year for Monthly Weather Review, 4 manuscripts a year for AMS journals, and 8 manuscripts a year in total, although some review more than 20 manuscripts a year. Each review takes an average of 9.6 h. Summing the individual contributions of the reviewers, respondents averaged 18 h yr−1 performing reviews for Monthly Weather Review, 36 h yr−1 for AMS journals, and 63 h yr−1 for all journals. The collective time that all of the reviewers put into the peer-review process for all manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review for each year amounts to 362,179 h, or more than 4 years of voluntary labor valued at over $2.34 million. Nearly all respondents (95%) are comfortable with their current load, but only 30% said that they would be willing to perform more reviews. Because the number of submissions to journals has been increasing over time and is unlikely to decrease in the near future, this burden is anticipated to grow. Options for reducing the burden include using fewer reviewers per manuscript, increasing the number of unilateral decisions made by editors, and increasing the size of the reviewer pool (particularly from active retired and early-career scientists).

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document