Record Details
 
  « New Search    
   
 
Bibliographic Data
Control Number409368
Date and Time of Latest Transaction20201212061611.AM
General Information201212s |||||||||b ||00|||
Cataloging SourceDOST-PCHRD
Main Entry - Personal NameVarona, Linda Lim
Title StatementThe role of a peer reviewer
Physical DescriptionIII-IV
Summary, Etc.Peer review is a vital part of the process of publishing medical journals. According to the Uniform Requirements of Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, the peer review process is an "unbiased, independent, critical assessment" that is an "intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific process." Peer review is accomplished by peers of authors, doctors or scientists, belonging to the same specialty or subspecialty of the subject of the paper for review. Peer review helps the editors in deciding whether a research paper is suitable for publication or not, and in "gatekeeping" the quality of scientific knowledge that goes into a journal. The peer reviewer's role is important. Peer reviewers act as arbiters between the editorial body and the authors of research papers. The peer reviewers, who are experts in their field, are invited or assigned to aid the editors in 1) assessing if the submitted research paper merits publication and 2) making recommendations on how a paper can be improved further. The peer reviewer, who is expected to make a systematic and thorough process of review, makes the recommendation whether a submitted article is worthy of acceptance, or should be rejected or revised. Together with such evaluation, the peer reviewer is also expected to make a constructive criticism of the research paper for the author/s, regardless of whether the submitted manuscript is deemed acceptable or not. In this light, the peer reviewer serves as an external advisor to the author. To avoid bias and to enhance further the review process, a manuscript is usually sent to at least two peer reviewers. Becoming a peer reviewer is generally considered as a privilege since the reviewer's expertise in the field is being tapped and the reviewer is being is depended upon to give an unbiased opinion on the quality of the paper. At the same time, a peer reviewer has unwritten responsibilities that he or she should render to the journal and editor, to his or her field of specialty, to the author, and to the patients and study subjects. The general practice is that the reviewer and the author/s are both blinded as to the identity of the other. The names of authors, the institution where the study was conducted and other details that would identify or give clues to the identity of the author are removed from the paper before it is sent to the reviewer. In return, the reviewer's identity is kept from the author. Likewise, a peer reviewer should be honest enough to admit and refuse the review if he or she deems that he or she is familiar with the research and if there is a potential conflict of interest. The editor should also be aware of the affiliation of the peer reviewer to avoid sending the paper to a colleague from the same department or institution as the author. The peer reviewer is also expected to treat the paper with confidentiality because of intellectual property rights; and with respect, realizing that the act is a privileged communication. He should handle the manuscript in the way he or she wants his own research to be handled. He or she should treat a manuscript with respect, fairness, and impartiality. Other responsibilities that go with the duty of reviewing a research paper include identifying and reporting suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fraud, and ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research. The reviewer should also take responsibility in meeting a deadline to be fair to the author and the journal. By delaying the review process, a potential conflict of charges by the author of "stonewalling" the publication to give priority to another related research can arise. If an unforeseen circumstance has arisen, it is the duty of the reviewer to inform the editors regarding the delay at the soonest possible time. What is the ideal or acceptable process of reviewing? In the series on Effective Medical Writing. The role of the manuscript reviewer, Prof. WCG Peh recommends this process: First, the peer reviewer should be familiar with the Instruction to Authors of the particular journal requesting for review. Then, he or she scans briefly the whole paper, trying to get a feel of what the author would like to communicate. After this, the reviewer reads and rereads the manuscript so that he or she may come up with a brief summary of what the paper is about, and give an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and general and specific comments of the entire paper in tabulated form. The comments should be concise but instructive and courteous. The peer reviewer's expertise is an invaluable instrument to enhance the merits of the paper. Therefore, a reviewer who makes a very short or no comment at all is not of much help to the editor nor to the author. Following this, the reviewer makes a more detailed, section-by-section analysis of the different parts of the paper starting from the title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, references, tables, illustrations, and legends. Usually, each journal adapts or creates its own peer review form or checklist for ease, and to serve as a guide to the reviewer. At the end, the reviewer makes a recommendation whether to: accept, accept pending revision, reconsider after major revision, or reject the manuscript. Regardless of the final recommendation, a prudent reviewer will make constructive specific comments and suggestions to benefit the author, not only for that manuscript, but also for future submissions. Here at PJIM, a submitted paper is sent to at least two peer reviewers and, if needed, to an epidemiologist or statistician to check the data analysis. The editorial board uses a checklist adapted from several resources for the reviewer's ease. The challenge that we face today at PJIM is the goal of increasing our pool of reviewers from all subspecialties, and to have a shorter turn-around time of the papers after sending them to the peer reviewers. Once a research work is published, it becomes a permanent document. A submitted research paper will always have room for improvement, and the amount of work contributed by the peer reviewers and the editors will definitely enhance and maximize the profitability of that research work for the benefit of the readers, media, and the general public
Subject Added Entry - Topical TermPEER REVIEW
 PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH
 PUBLISHING
 MANUSCRIPTS
 PUBLICATION FORMATS
 ROLE
 PEER REV
 PEER REVIEW, PUBLISHING
 ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING
 PUBLISHING, ELECTRONIC
 PEER REVIEW
 PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH
 PUBLISHING
 MANUSCRIPTS
 PUBLICATION FORMATS
 ROLE
 
     
 
Physical Location
 
     
 
Digital Copy
Not Available
 
     
 
         
         
Online Catalog
Basic Search
Advanced Search
Browse Subjects
Book Cart
 
         

Text Size:
S  -  M  -  L
Copyright © 2004-2024. Philippine eLib Project
Host: U.P. Diliman University Library