Understanding Peer Review: A Guide to Scientific Publishing
Written on
Introduction to Peer Review
Having spent the last five years working in editorial roles at peer-reviewed STEM journals, I've gained valuable insights into the scholarly publishing sector. I've come to realize that both researchers and the wider public often harbor misconceptions about peer review and the publishing process. This knowledge gap has proven particularly perilous during the pandemic, where misinformation thrives and is exploited by those misusing scientific authority to propagate false claims. To help clarify these issues, I am launching a series of concise articles aimed at elucidating how scientific research is assessed and published.
What Exactly Is Peer Review?
You might be familiar with the term "peer-reviewed journals," which differ from magazines or trade publications. Journals serve as the primary conduit for research and discoveries to enter the scientific discourse. They play a crucial role in filtering out poorly conducted or fundamentally flawed research. The process journals employ to decide which studies merit publication is known as peer review. This involves a thorough assessment of a research article by a panel of experts in the relevant field.
The Lifecycle of a Manuscript Submission
Initially, an author or group of authors submits their manuscript to a journal, but they are permitted to submit to only one journal at a time. The manuscript first undergoes a preliminary assessment by an editor, who is typically a subject matter expert, often holding a PhD and being a tenured professor. The editor may either immediately reject the paper if it clearly does not align with the journal's focus (this is referred to as a ‘desk reject’) or opt to send it for a more comprehensive review.
Review Process
The editor then selects experts in the field to evaluate the manuscript. Although the number of reviewers can vary, many journals require at least two evaluations before making a decision. Once a reviewer agrees, they access the article, meticulously analyze it, and provide feedback regarding the scientific quality, methodology, conclusions, and overall writing. Occasionally, the editor may request specialized reviewers, such as a statistical expert, to scrutinize the data analysis underpinning the research.
These peer reviewers volunteer their time without compensation, balancing this additional responsibility with their own demanding roles as professors, researchers, or industry professionals. Many scientists feel an obligation to accept peer review requests as a way of supporting the scientific community, knowing they would appreciate the same thoroughness for their own submissions.
Decision-Making
After gathering the necessary reviews, the editor evaluates the feedback, juxtaposing the various comments with their own insights. A decision is then made based on the reviews, followed by a decision letter that often synthesizes the feedback. Should the verdict be rejection, the process concludes here. Conversely, if the editor decides to invite revisions, they will ask authors to amend their manuscript in response to the reviewers’ critiques. It is relatively rare for a manuscript to be accepted outright without any modifications.
Revision and Acceptance
Upon receiving the revised manuscript, the editor may choose to send it back for another round of review with the original reviewers to assess the adequacy of the revisions. If both reviewers and the editor find the changes satisfactory, the manuscript can be approved for publication. If not, additional revisions may be requested, and authors might need to resubmit multiple times until the article meets the journal's standards. Once accepted, the manuscript transitions from the editorial team to the production unit for copy editing and typesetting ahead of publication.
This outlines the fundamental lifecycle of a peer-reviewed manuscript. While there are many variations in how peer review can be executed, I will delve into those aspects in future articles. Generally, all journals aim to uphold the integrity of the peer review process while minimizing bias. Although it is not infallible, peer review remains the most effective mechanism we currently have to differentiate credible science from pseudoscience.
Understanding the Review Process
In "Publishing Your Research 101 - Episode 6, Part 1: The Review Process For Reviewers," viewers can learn about the essential steps involved in the review process, geared towards both authors and reviewers.