Peer-Review of Scientific Journals

Pirhaghghi, Mitra; Saboury, Ali Akbar

Peer-Review of Scientific Journals

Document Type : Promotion Article

Authors

Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Peer review process in journal publication, has been a mechanism for ensuring high quality research in academia for a long time. It varies slightly from journal to journal. For an article to be accepted in a journal, the style and publication format of the journal is observed.
Peer reviewing is a novel method developed after World War II for evaluation of paper publications due to large volume of scientific research and increase in number of specialty .Peer-reviewed journals are considered as a subset of scholarly journals. This process is divided into three general categories: blind review, open review and post- publication review; these categories are different in their stages and evaluation procedures.
There are several methods for identifying the peer-reviewed journals, these include:
limiting search in databases to only peer reviewed results, checking Ulrich’s directory, checking the official site of journals Based on the number of editors, editorial board and peer reviewing process, there are several different journal peer review and evaluation processes which will be discussed here. Journal peer-reviewer has important responsibilities in his/her review; for example, he/she needs to maintain confidentiality about the title and article data. Despite of many advantages using peer review process, there has also been criticism of the process. This paper provides an overview of the peer review process and different types, stages, history, weaknesses, different systems of this process, discussion on peer-reviewed articles, identifying peer-reviewed journals, peer reviewers and responsibilities.

Keywords

20.1001.1.2008935.1393.04.2.3.9

References

[1]. Bachrach S., Berry R. S., Blume M., Foerster T., Fowler A., Ginsparg P., Heller S., Kestner N., Odlyzko A., Okerson A., Wigington R., Moffat A. (1998). "Who Should Own Scientific Papers? ", Science, Vol. 281, No. 5382, PP. 1459-1460.
[2]. Yi-Luen Do E. (2003)."Why Peer Review Journals, International Journal of Architectural Computing ", Vol. 1, No. 2, PP. 253-265.
[3]. Bordage G., Caelleigh A. (2001)."A Tool for Reviewers: "Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts" , Academic Medicine, Vol. 76, No. 9, PP. 904-908.
[4]. Brown T. (2004)."Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas", Sense About Science, London, PP. 1-21
[5]. Polak J. F. (1995)."The Role of the Manuscript Reviewer in the Peer Review Process", American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR), Vol. 165, No.3, PP. 685-688.
[6].Ware M., Monkman M. (2008)."Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives",Publishing Research Consortium, London, PP.5-19
[7].Wager E., Godlee F., Jefferson T. (2002)."How to Survive Peer Review", First published, BMJ Books,London, PP. 3-10
[8]. Grant M., Hoffman S. (2003)." Popular or Scholarly?", Wilson Library, Vol. 612, No. 4, PP. 626-2227.
[9].Benos D. J., Bashari E., Chaves J. M., Gaggar A., Kapoor N., LaFrance M., Mans R., Mayhew D., McGowan S., Polter A., Qadri Y., Sarfare Sh., Schultz K., Splittgerber R., Stephenson J., Tower C., Walton R. G., Zotov A. (2007)."The Ups and Downs of Peer Review", Adv Physiol Educ, Vol. 31, No. 2, PP. 145–152.
[10]. Spier R. (2002)."The History of the Peer-Review Process", TRENDS in Biotechnology, Vol. 20, No. 8, PP. 357-358.
[11].Wagner W., Steinzor R. (2006)."Rescuing Science from Politics; Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research", First Published, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, PP. 238-254
[12]. The Editors of The New Atlantis, (2006)."Rethinking Peer Review", The New Atlantis, Vol. 13, No. 13, PP. 106-110.
[13]. Benos D. J., Kirk K. L., Hall J. E. (2003),"How to review a paper", Advances in physiology education, Vol. 27, No. 2, PP. 47-52.
[14]. Page G., Campbell R., Meadows A.J. (1997), "Journal Publishing". Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, England, PP. 346-371.
[۱۵]. ابویی اردکان، محمد، میرزایی، سید آیت الله. (۱۳۸۹)." داوران و اخلاق داوری در مجله های علمی ایران، فصلنامه اخلاق در علوم و فناوری، شماره ۱ و ۲، صص 36-47.