Peer Review and Publication
-means by which science is communicated
and how science makes progress (new
discoveries build upon those of the past).
-absolutely critical…and also subject to
several ethical issues.
-first step of your research is a literature review…so
that you know what has been done in the past.
-for the published literature to be dependable, there
must be a system of quality control…
…this is the peer review process.
-not perfect, has several weaknesses, is
not uniform, not always friendly to truly new
discoveries…
…but is the best we have
Importance of peer review
1. Disseminate dependable, truthful
information
-legal profession puts heavy emphasis on
peer reviewed publications.
2. Prevent fraud and misleading information
-does not always accomplish this
3. Provides a body of valid data for regulatory,
health and legal decisions.
4. Important to professional evaluations of job
performance and personal advancement
-some variation in different organizations
5. Necessary part of research proposal review and
decisions on funding of research grants.
So, in order to critically evaluate published papers,
it’s important to understand the peer review
process to better understand (and look for)
weaknesses
What is the process?
1. Write! (And, read a lot so that you can write
well).
a. the title is critical (communication,
attention, search engines)
b. introduction makes your first impression
and should tell a story and pose a question
to be answered (objectives, hypothesis)
c. discuss, don’t repeat, results in discussion
d. tables and figures must stand alone (be
fully understood by themselves)
e. concentrate on…and use…the rules of
language.
f. be careful about self-citation
g. follow the style guide carefully for the
journal selected
-appropriate journal
-most prestigious possible
-consider “impact factors” and
journal rankings (Thomson Reuters)
h. have colleagues read your draft
2. Submit to major prof., supervisor, boss, etc.
3. Revise…and think about the changes,
especially references
-don’t take anything personally
4. Re-submit, re-revise as much as needed
5. Send to journal editor
-preliminary review, selection of reviewers (2-3)
-usually anonymous
-some journals ask for suggestions or
for those you do NOT want as
reviewers-absolutely critical decision
6. Receive reviewers recommendations (accept as
is, accept with minor changes, accept with major
changes, reject, and comments)
-several concerns here: anonymous
reviewers (accountability), confidentiality,
civility, bias, incompetence, delays (deliberate
or not)
7. Revise…if you are lucky…or good!
-must make suggested changes or justify
-rejection rate is 50%-80% for the best
journals
8. Galley proofs…
9. Publication!!!...probably 6-12 months after
submission
-electronic systems are shortening the time lag
Several journals, most notably, the Journal of
the American Medical Association have tried
to study peer review…with a scientific
approach.
Please read JAMA 295(3):314-317 (2006), and
295(14): 1675-1680 (2006)
Google JAMA (not available electronically in the
Parks library) to find the above articles.