Peer review

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluating a grant
proposal

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (

academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review. It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments.[2]

Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[3][4][5]

Professional

Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[6]

A prototype professional peer review process was recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[7]

Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review.[8] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[9] Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[10] law,[11][12] engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[13]

Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.[14][15]

Scholarly

proceedings of an academic conference
. If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review.

Academic peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined)

academic field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals. However, peer review does not prevent publication of invalid research,[16] and as experimentally controlled studies of this process are difficult to arrange, direct evidence that peer review improves the quality of published papers is scarce.[17]

Scholarly peer review has been subject to several criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system have been suggested over the years. Many studies have emphasized the problems inherent to the process of peer review.[18] Moreover, Ragone et al., [19] have shown that there is a low correlation between peer review outcomes and the future impact measured by citations. Brezis and Birukou also show that the Peer Review process is not working properly. They underline that the ratings are not robust, e.g., changing reviewers can have a dramatic impact on the review results. Two main elements affect the bias in the peer process.[20]

  • The first element is that referees display homophily in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. So reviewers who are developing conventional ideas will tend to give low grades to innovative projects, while reviewers who have developed innovative ideas tend, by homophily, to give higher grades to innovative projects.
  • The second element leading to a high variance in the peer review process is that reviewers are not investing the same amount of time to analyze the projects (or equivalently are not with the same abilities). Brezis and Biruku[20] show that this heterogeneity among referees will lead to seriously affect the whole peer review process, and will lead to main arbitrariness in the results of the process.[20]

The peer process is also in use for projects acceptance. (For projects, the acceptance rates are small and are between 1% and 20%, with an average of 10%. In the European H2020 calls, the acceptance rate is 1.8%.) Peer review is more problematic when choosing the projects to be funded since innovative projects are not highly ranked in the existing peer-review process. The peer-review process leads to conformity, i.e., the selection of less controversial projects and papers. This may even influence the type of proposals scholars will propose, since scholars need to find financing for their research as discussed by Martin, 1997:[21] "A common informal view is that it is easier to obtain funds for conventional projects. Those who are eager to get funding are not likely to propose radical or unorthodox projects. Since you don't know who the referees are going to be, it is best to assume that they are middle-of-the-road. Therefore, the middle-of-the-road application is safer".[20]

Other attempts to reform the peer review process originate among others from the fields of metascience and journalology. Reformers seek to increase the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and to provide it with a scientific foundation.[22][23][24]

Alternatives to common peer review practices have been put to the test,
F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.[27] In the case of eLife, peer review is used not for deciding whether to publish an article, but for assessing its importance and reliability.[28]

Government policy

The

social inclusion.[30] Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report
on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.

The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.[31]

Medical

Medical peer review may be distinguished in four classifications:[32]

  1. Clinical peer review is a procedure for assessing a patient's involvement with experiences of care. It is a piece of progressing proficient practice assessment and centered proficient practice assessment—significant supporters of supplier credentialing and privileging.[33]
  2. Peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses.[34][35]
  3. Scientific peer review of journal articles.
  4. A secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.[36]

Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.[37][38] The clinical network believes it to be the most ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.[39]

Technical

In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.[40]

Pedagogical tool

Peer review, or student peer assessment, is widely used in secondary and post-secondary education as part of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other's work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision.[41] While widely used in English and composition classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines which require writing as part of the curriculum. These other disciplines include those in the social and natural sciences.[42][43] Peer review in classrooms helps students become more invested in their work, and the classroom environment at large.[citation needed] Understanding how their work is read by a diverse readership before it is graded by the teacher may also help students clarify ideas, and understand how to persuasively reach different audience members via their writing. It also gives students professional experience that they might draw on later when asked to review the work of a colleague prior to publication.[44][45] The process can also bolster the confidence of students on both sides of the process. It has been found that students are more positive than negative when reviewing their classmates' writing.[46] The positive findings from the study could help students not get discouraged but rather feel determined after receiving peer review.[46]

Critics of peer review in classrooms say that it can be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving constructive criticism, or lack of expertise in the writing craft at large.[47] Teachers using peer review as an assignment can lead to rushed-through feedback by peers, using incorrect praise or criticism, thus not allowing the writer or the editor to get much out of the activity.[10] As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the class, or focus on specific areas of feedback during the peer review process.[48] Instructors may also experiment with in-class peer review vs. peer review as homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning management systems online. Students that are older can give better feedback to their peers, getting more out of peer review, but it is still a method used in classrooms to help students young and old learn how to revise.[2] With evolving and changing technology, peer review will develop as well. New tools could help alter the process of peer review.[49]

Results of peer review in a classroom setting

Peer review is the method by which editors and writers work together in hopes of helping the author establish and further flesh out and develop their own writing.[50]

As stated before peer review can be used in the classroom to provide different results that occur among students to further improve their own writing. There was an experiment conducted on 21 students from other countries that carried on for six weeks. The purpose of the experiment was to explore the benefits and the limits of peer review. It was also used as a way to determine if verbal and written feedback was beneficial for the students.[51]

As research shows the preferred method was verbal communication. Students in both groups labeled L1 and L2 liked verbal communication as it was easier to convey their thoughts and concerns much easier than using written feedback as a way to peer review.[51]

In a different classroom setting, it was stated by one of the students that peer review wasn't helpful as the student viewed herself as inferior to giving out any suggestions and has never asked other writers for help.[52]

Peer review can be used in a classroom setting, although it can impact the student's opinion of themselves as well as others. Sometimes students feel a personal connection to the work they have produced which can make them feel reluctant to receive or give out criticism as it can make them feel bad.[53] Rather than critiquing each other's work, peer review should be used in a way to build a connection between author and editor as it can help develop their identity as writers as well as the interactions they have with others because writing can be a reflection of who we are.[53]

Peer seminar

Peer seminar is a method that involves a speaker that presents ideas to an audience that also acts as a "contest". To further elaborate, there are multiple speakers that are called out one at a time and given an amount of time to present the topic that they have researched. Each speaker may or may not talk about the same topic but each speaker has something to gain or lose which can foster a competitive atmosphere.[54]This approach allows speakers to present in a more personal tone while trying to appeal to the audience while explaining their topic.

Peer seminars may be somewhat similar to what conference speakers do, however, there is more time to present their points, and speakers can be interrupted by audience members to provide questions and feedback upon the topic or how well the speaker did in presenting their topic.[54]

See also

References

  1. ^ "peer review process". www.cancer.gov. 2 February 2011. Retrieved 5 July 2022.
  2. ^
    S2CID 86438229
    .
  3. ^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Archived from the original on 16 January 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  4. S2CID 186211404
    .
  5. .
  6. .
  7. .
  8. S2CID 45863865. Archived from the original
    on 21 July 2012.
  9. .
  10. ^ from the original on 28 October 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  11. ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. 12 July 2007. Archived from the original on 14 October 2010.
  12. ^ "Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Reviews and Ratings". Martindale. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  13. ^ "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. 6 February 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  14. (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
  15. (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  16. ^ Kupferschmidt, Kai (14 August 2018). "Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
  17. PMID 24052283
    .
  18. .
  19. .
  20. ^
    S2CID 211017926.
    CC BY icon.svg
    Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    .
  21. ^ Martin, B. "Chapter 5: Peer review as scholarly conformity". www.bmartin.cc.
  22. S2CID 4408375
    .
  23. .
  24. ^ Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer (18 September 2018). "'Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?". Science | AAAS. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  25. PMID 30482224
    .
  26. .
  27. .
  28. .
  29. ^ "Mutual Learning Programme - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission". ec.europa.eu.
  30. ^ "Social Peer to Peer – Online Casino Reviews". www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu. Archived from the original on 11 April 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021.
  31. ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Archived from the original on 30 March 2017. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  32. ^ "Review by Peers" (PDF). A Guide for Professional, Clinical and Administrative Processes. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 October 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  33. PMID 27749718
    .
  34. ^ "Medschool.ucsf.edu" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 August 2010.
  35. PMID 9934106
    .
  36. .
  37. ^ Snelson, Elizabeth A. (2010). Physician's Guide to Medical Staff Organization Bylaws (PDF). ama-assn.org. p. 131. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 2011.
  38. ^ "Medical Peer Review". Ama-assn.org. Archived from the original on 6 March 2010.
  39. ^ "Peer review: What is it and why do we do it?". www.medicalnewstoday.com. 29 March 2019. Archived from the original on 28 August 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  40. ^ NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (PDF). NASA. 2007. SP-610S. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
  41. from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
  42. from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
  43. .
  44. ^ "Benefits of Peer Review". www.southwestern.edu. Archived from the original on 19 August 2021. Retrieved 19 August 2021.
  45. .
  46. ^ .
  47. ^ "What Are the Disadvantages of Student Peer Review? | Synonym". classroom.synonym.com. Archived from the original on 30 September 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
  48. ^ "Conducting Peer Review – Writers Workshop". Archived from the original on 20 August 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2021.
  49. ^ Reese, Ashley; Rachamalla, Rajeev; Rudniy, Alex; Aull, Laura; Eubanks, David (2018). "Contemporary Peer Review: Construct Modeling, Measurement Foundations, and the Future of Digital Learning" (PDF).
  50. ^ Söderlund; Wells, Lars; Jaclyn (September 2019). "A Study of the Practices and Responsibilities of Scholarly Peer Review in Rhetoric and Composition" (PDF).
  51. ^ a b Chamcharatsri, Bee (2017). ""I Could Expr "I Could Express Feeling Completely eeling Completely": Inviting L2 W ": Inviting L2 Writers t riters to Use L1 o Use L1 in Peer Responses".
  52. ^ Gere, Anne Ruggles; Silver, Naomi, eds. (2019). Developing Writers in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-13124-2.
  53. ^ a b ""What Can You Possibly Know About My Experience?": Toward a Practice of Self-Reflection and Multicultural Competence". The Peer Review. 2017-12-05. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  54. ^ a b Aguilar, Marta (2004-01-01). "The peer seminar, a spoken research process genre". Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 3 (1): 55–72. doi:10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00043-2. ISSN 1475-1585.

Further reading

External links