The Peer Review Process - a Tutorial

Malene Roland Vils Pedersen; Albertina Rusandu; Audun Sanderud; Randi Johansen Reidunsdatter

doi:10.7577/radopen.5702

Forfattere

Malene Roland Vils Pedersen University of Southern Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5167-7968
Albertina Rusandu Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.
Audun Sanderud 5 Department of Radiology, Akershus University Hospital, Norway & 6 Norwegian Nuclear Decommissioning, Norway https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1190-0605
Randi Johansen Reidunsdatter 4 Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7577/radopen.5702

Emneord (Nøkkelord):

Peer review, role extension, author guidelines

Sammendrag

Peer reviewers plays a crucial for scientific journals today. The review process is a critical view on the submitted work and should be evaluated by peers within the same scientific area. The experts perform this task outside normal working hours and will typically receive no compensation. The task is to improve the articles’ quality prior to publication.

The objective of this tutorial is to describe the peer reviewer process and provide a practical framework for current and future peer reviewers.

Forfatterbiografier

Audun Sanderud, 5 Department of Radiology, Akershus University Hospital, Norway & 6 Norwegian Nuclear Decommissioning, Norway

5 Department of Radiology, Akershus University Hospital, Norway

6 Norwegian Nuclear Decommissioning, Norway

Randi Johansen Reidunsdatter, 4 Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.

4 Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway.

Referanser

Winck JC FJ, Azevedo LF, Wedzicha JA. To publish or perish: How to review a manuscript. Rev Port Pneumol. 2011;17:96-103.

Roland PM. Peer review– falsk sikkerhed eller fantastisk metode? Radiografen 2020;48(8):8-10.

The Royal Society [cited 2023 3th of August]. Available from: https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/history-philosophical-transactions/.

R S. The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology. 2002;20(8):357-8.

Kerig PK. Why Participate in Peer Review? J Trauma Stress. 2021;34(1):5-8.

Song E, Ang L, Park JY, Jun EY, Kim KH, Jun J, et al. A scoping review on biomedical journal peer review guides for reviewers. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251440.

Moylan EC, Kowalczuk MK. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012047.

Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017;6:588.

Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:6.

Thombs BD LA, Razykov I, Syamchandra A, Leentjens AFG, Levenson JL, Lumley MA Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers:

A cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78(1):1-6.

Peebles E, Scandlyn M, Hesp BR. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237804.

Herber OR, Bradbury-Jones C, Boling S, Combes S, Hirt J, Koop Y, et al. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):122.

Marcoci A, Vercammen A, Bush M, Hamilton DG, Hanea A, Hemming V, et al. Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process. BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):127.

Munasinghe BM, Chapman C, Hewavitharane C, Hewawasam G, Dissanayakege TG. Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review. Cureus. 2022;14(10):e30341.

Jauregui J, Artino AR, Jr., Ilgen JS, Sullivan G, van Schaik SM. Publishing your scholarship: a survey of pearls from top reviewers. Med Educ Online. 2022;27(1):2016561.

Hosseini M, Horbach S. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in scholarly peer review. Res Square (Pre P

rint). 2023.

Kelly J ST, Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25:227-43.

Services WA. Step by step guide to reviiwing a anuscript [Available from: https://authorservices-wiley-com.proxy1-bib.sdu.dk/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html.

Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42(1):1-13.

Tong A SP, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007(19):349-57.

clase CM DD, Holden R et al. Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive

Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to

Kindness and a Call to Action. Canadian Journal of Kidney health and Disease. 2022;9:1-6.

Annals of Internal Medicine. Informatoin for reviewers: how to be antb, a reviewer for a medical journal. p. https://www.acpjournals.org/journal/aim/reviewers.

F PJ. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process. AJR. 1995;165:685-8.

Murphy SP, Bulman C, Shariati B, Hausmann L, Committee ISNP. Submitting a manuscript for peer review--integrity, integrity, integrity. J Neurochem. 2014;128(3):341-3.

El-Guebaly N, Foster J, Bahji A, Hellman M. The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023;40(1):14-21.

Herron DM. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2275-80.

Tandon R. How to review a scientific paper. Asian J Psychiatr. 2014;11:124-7.