Peer reviewers have a significant part in publishing - they're responsible not only for helping academics share their findings but also for increasing opportunities and ties between academia and providing validation that ensures high-quality standards from start to finish.
Recognizing the criticisms by some who say it has outlived its usefulness with few significant updates since inception, the peer review process remains essential both academically and improving how our world conducts itself today thanks to minor improvements.
Who conducts peer reviews?
When conducting a peer review, scientific experts who are knowledgeable in the specific subject of that manuscript will read over it and provide constructive criticism on how to improve its quality. These people can be young or old; they have knowledge and experience about this particular field, allowing them to offer insight into any potential problems with the paper's content.
Interestingly, the young reviewers are often the most responsive and deliver quality reviews. However, this is not always so; on average, a reviewer will conduct 8 reviews per year, according to research from Publishing Research Consortium.
Journals have diverse pools of reviewers with many different backgrounds for them to have all perspectives that they may need when reading submissions.
Most review committees will have a large reviewer bank so that reviewers don't run into burnout, time constraints, or overwhelming workloads from reviewing multiple articles at once.
What is the Impact of the peer review?
The peer review principle has been seen as a cornerstone to the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author's work to scrutiny from other experts in their field. This encourages authors to want but needs high-quality research to advance science and knowledge about any given subject matter.
The scientific community is always eager to accept a new hypothesis.
Still, it takes time for them to be accepted and can take even longer if the research isn't published in reputable journals. Impact Factors are given out by ISI (Information Science Institute) only when an article has been peer reviewed first because they know that the articles will have received high levels of scrutiny before being allowed into their publication list.
Type of Peer Reviews?
It's important to know what type of review system you're working with when submitting your manuscript. Different systems have different advantages and disadvantages, so it is up to the journal editor to choose.
It is becoming more common for journals to be transparent about their peer review process so that authors can make a well-informed decision about which journal would best fit their paper's needs and their paper before submission. The merit of an article must be based on the content rather than who wrote it or the institution the authors come from.
Single Blind Review
Single blind reviews are traditionally the most common type of review. It hides reviewers' names from authors to avoid any potential bias. Some points that should be considered with single blind reviews include:
- Reviewers anonymity allows them to criticise papers without fearing any conflict of interest with the authors. Some people use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily cruel to the writers of reviews, and in many cases, it is competitive writing that causes this tone.
Double Blind Review
Double blind peer review is a process where both author and reviewer's identities are concealed from each other. If you want to be sure that your work will not get judged by an identifiable style, then this might just do it for you. This review method outlines a key aspect:
- Reviewers' evaluation won't be influenced by authors' academic status or country of origin, for example.
Triple Blind Review
There are many different ways to review papers, but a process known as triple blind review is often considered the most unbiased. With this system, reviewers and authors' identities are unknown to each other, same as double blind. Besides that, authors' identities are also hidden to journal editors. There's something worth noting about this method:
- It ensures that authors' work is not object of a biased process during submission by journals' editors.
Open peer review is a term that encompasses many different models of transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other throughout the whole process.
There is a debate about whether an open review or closed review can be better for reviewing articles.
Some say that it prevents malicious comments, stops plagiarism, and encourages reviewers to follow their own agenda because they know the author cannot see what they are writing.
Others believe this process leads them to feel less honest as politeness may cause people not to share criticism of an article with the writer who could improve on something if given feedback.
The peer review process is an essential part of the scientific enterprise. It has been recognized by many to be a fundamental pillar in the development and advancement of knowledge around the world. Peer review is often viewed as a process that identifies errors, biases, and other limitations to publication quality.
The peer review process also ensures that research publications are fair and unbiased, which is important for maintaining trustworthiness with readership.
Here at Orvium, we offer a research paper publishing platform where we have built-in tools for self-publishing, free global access to published research, as well as the option for expert reviews from peers in your field through an open peer review.
So if you are looking for help publishing your paper Orvium has what you need to do so.