Diversity of opinion among professional contributors when preparing for publication is one of the most important needs of an author (Baltic, 2001).
Valuable feedback from peer reviewing enables the benefits of truthful, positive, trustworthy and fair viewpoints. Avoiding malfeasance, being aware of other alternatives and enjoying a clear conscience is invaluable.
The aim of peer process is to review information by validating, identifying best candidates with powerful influence and producing the best reliable quality (Shashok, 2005).
The principles and responsibilities of a peer reviewers are found in the Australian code for the responsible conduct of research (Section 6).
Skills of peer reviewers
Halder, Ramsay, Tyrer, and Casey (2011) suggest a Template for peer-review and discuss the advantages and disadvantages.
understand and prioritise industry needs
recognise good work
be active and thorough in feedback
remain self controlled in reviewing
provide evidence for acceptance
improve manuscript in likeness to a co-author
guide author in formatting the manuscript to industry preference.
Expertise needed to:
understand the merits of an article
validate the design and methodology
know existing work in the topic
correct reporting requirements
analyse and interpret results
provide good scientific judgement
understand the relevance of the research in the field
correct with good English literacy skills.
Accountability and responsibility for:
interest in quality
being identified (acknowledgements, co-review or footnote section of manuscript).
Different forms of peer review
Reviewers of the paper do not know the identity of the author.
The reviewers' identity is anonymous to the author.
Transparency in reviewer and author knowledge of identity.
Peer review is performed at different stages
Faculty discussions (informal)
Abstracts in conference submissions
Social media feedback
Pre-prints of publications
Post publication peer review
Baltic, S. (2001). Conference addresses potential flaws in peer review process. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93(22), 1679–1680. doi:10.1093/jnci/93.22.1679
Halder, N., Ramsay, R., Tyrer, P., & Casey, P. (2011). Peer reviewing made easy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 17(2), 150-157. doi:10.1192/apt.bp.109.007294