Peer review
Peer review is a systematic evaluation process where experts assess the work of their peers to determine quality and suitability for publication or funding. It exists in two primary forms: professional peer review, commonly used in workplace settings, and scholarly peer review, which is prevalent in academic and scientific communities. Professional peer review involves colleagues evaluating each other's performance, often with the aim of enhancing efficiency and productivity. However, it faces challenges such as discomfort among employees regarding peer evaluations and concerns about bias in anonymous reviews.
On the other hand, scholarly peer review has a long history, dating back to the mid-1600s, and is crucial for maintaining high standards in academic publishing. In this context, submitted articles are reviewed by experts who assess the validity of research methods and conclusions. Despite its importance, scholarly peer review has been criticized for issues like fraudulent practices and conflicts of interest, prompting calls for more rigorous guidelines and the implementation of double-blind review systems. Overall, while peer review plays a vital role in improving quality across various fields, it is not without its complexities and ongoing debates.
Peer review
Peer review is the evaluation of a person's work by other experts in the same field. Peer review in a workplace environment is known as professional peer review. In academic and scientific circles, scholarly peer review is the process by which experts evaluate the merits of a person's work and determine if the work is acceptable for publication or grant funding. Both forms of peer review have come under criticism.
Professional Peer Review
In most workplace settings, managers handle employee reviews. However, many companies have turned to professional peer review to try to make the review process more efficient.
In some fields, such as medicine, a professional review body may evaluate an individual's job performance. This body may have the power to determine if the individual's professional activities have warranted disciplinary action, such as revoking the individual's license to practice.
Most other professional peer reviews are less formal. Companies enlist employees to help evaluate the work of their colleagues. In some instances, managers meet with the employee's peers to ask them questions. Other companies may use a system that allows peers to submit employee reviews anonymously throughout the year. Some businesses allow employees to evaluate the performance of their managers as well.
Proponents of the practice argue that professional peer review increases employee efficiency and overall productivity. They also claim that the process can boost morale and improve relationships between managers and employees, as well as foster good communication in the workplace.
Criticism of Professional Peer Review
While some companies find professional peer review effective, the process is not without its problems. Asking employees to rate their peers may make them uncomfortable, especially if reviews are not conducted anonymously. On the other hand, anonymous systems that allow employees to rate their colleagues present their own issues. Some employers are concerned that these systems will skew results because people are more likely to post reviews when they have something extremely positive or extremely negative to say. Employees are less likely to post average reviews.
Some employers fear that the time it takes to provide peer reviews will actually cut down on efficiency. In addition, some companies worry that peer review will force employees to focus more on trying to please their colleagues, who will be evaluating them, and less on their work.
Scholarly Peer Review
Scholarly peer review is sometimes referred to as refereeing or expert review. It is the process by which an individual or group of individuals submits their work for publication in an academic journal or for grant or trust funding from an institution. In general, journal editors and grant committees use peer review to try to ensure that the work they accept is of the highest possible quality.
Scholarly peer review of articles dates back hundreds of years. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society used scholarly peer review to assess scientific manuscripts during the mid-1600s. Since that time, many of the most respected academic journals have employed the peer-review system.
While some differences among publications and academic fields exist, the peer review process generally includes the following steps:
The author (or group of authors) submits an article to a scholarly journal.
The journal's editor forwards the article to a group of experts (considered to be the author's peers) who review the work. These reviewers are selected based on their expertise with the subject matter. They examine the integrity of the research methods used by the author and assess the conclusions presented in the paper. The reviewers also check the work for any factual errors.
The reviewers provide one of three possible recommendations. If the paper is of sound quality, they recommend it for publication. Occasionally, the reviewers will ask an author to revise the work and resubmit. If the paper does not meet the publication's standards, the reviewers will reject it.
Peer review for grant or trust funding is similar to scholarly peer review of academic articles. Reviewers at an institution will assess every aspect of a research proposal to determine if it deserves funding. In the end, the reviewers may decide to reject the proposal, ask the author or authors to revise the work and resubmit, or award the desired funding.
Criticism of Scholarly Peer Review
Scholarly peer review has had criticism due to issues involving the integrity of the process. In 2006, the journal Science had to retract two papers written by South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk after it was discovered that he had falsified his research. In 2012, the editor of the Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry found that a researcher was actually reviewing his own papers. A similar case of peer-review fixing in 2013 led to the retraction of about sixty academic articles.
Such incidents have forced editors of scholarly journals to reexamine their peer-review practices. Many experts believe that editors should not allow authors to suggest reviewers for their papers, which is what led to some of the aforementioned fraud in 2012 and 2013. Additionally, some experts believe that double-blind review, in which the authors and the reviewers remain unknown to each other, is necessary for the peer-review process to be effective. This is one possible way to help ensure the integrity of scholarly peer review.
As such, many scholarly organizations have implemented guidelines to ensure the integrity of the peer review process. For instance, the American Psychological Association (APA) used a system in which the reviewers remained anonymous. Following the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the early twenty-first century, some organizations cautioned against their use in the peer review process.
Bibliography
Allen, Timothy Craig. "Medical Peer Review." Pathology Case Reviews, vol. 17, no. 4, 2012, pp. 148–56.
Chenail, Ron. "Peer Review." The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by Lisa M. Given, vol. 2, Sage Publications, 2008, pp. 604–6.
Chubin, Daryl E., and Edward J. Hackett. "Peer Review." Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics, edited by Carl Mitcham, vol. 3, Macmillan Reference USA, 2005, pp. 1390–94.
"Evaluating Information Sources: What Is a Peer-Reviewed Article?" Lloyd Sealy Library, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 14 Sept. 2016, guides.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/c.php?g=288333&p=1922599. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016.
Ferguson, Cat, et al. "Publishing: The Peer-Review Scam." Nature, vol. 515, no. 7528, 2014, doi:10.1038/515480a. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016.
Hagler, K. "Pros and Cons of Peer Review." NFIB, National Federation of Independent Business, 1 Dec. 2011, www.nfib.com/article/pros-and-cons-of-peer-reviews-58824/. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016.
"How to conduct a review." Elsevier, www.elsevier.com/reviewer/how-to-review. Accessed 22 Aug. 2024.
"Peer Review." American Psychological Association, June 2021, www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/peer-review. Accessed 22 Aug. 2024.
Silverman, Rachel Emma, and Leslie Kwoh. "Peer Performance Reviews Take Off." The Wall Street Journal, 31 July 2012, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444130304577561170001371712. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016.