Peer review



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.

Experience to:

  • understand and prioritise industry needs

  • recognise good work

  • be active and thorough in feedback

  • remain self controlled in reviewing

  • advocate innovation

  • 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

  • serving professionally

  • being identified (acknowledgements, co-review or footnote section of manuscript).

Different forms of peer review


Double blind

Reviewers of the paper do not know the identity of the author.

Single blind

The reviewers' identity is anonymous to the author.

Open

Transparency in reviewer and author knowledge of identity.

Peer review is performed at different stages

Faculty discussions (informal)

Abstracts in conference submissions

Conference feedback

Social media feedback

Pre-prints of publications

Post publication peer review

Books

Journals

Grants

Suggested Readings

Australian code for the responsible conduct of research

Ethics: Increasing accountability

How to Submit a Revision and Tips on Being a Good Peer-Reviewer

Peer reviewing made easy

References

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


Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Medical Presentations - Pinterest
  • LinkedIn - White Circle
Medical Presentations

 

© Copyright 2020. Medical Presentations 

ABN: 44 676 467 165

Medical Presentations Service Offering