[The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle]
- PMID: 28901342
- DOI: 10.1701/2745.27985
[The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle]
Abstract
Since several decades, peer review has become the standard to evaluate quality and priority of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals. During this process, manuscript is reviewed by scientists from the same field of the authors, with a competency on the topic of the manuscript (peer reviewers). Peer reviewers submit their comments to the journal editor, who then takes a decision on manuscript acceptance, need for revision of rejection. Several models for peer review exist, such as double-blind, single-blind, open, post publication. Hence the task of peer reviewer requires time, competency and carries a significant responsibility. Most peer reviewers perform these task as a service to the scientific community, but explicit recognition of this effort is still very limited. This has negative consequences on the publication process overall, since scientists often decline invitations to peer review and quality is not always ensured. In this article we overview the main options available for crediting peer reviewers for their efforts, focusing, in particular on the creation of a robust metrics able to attest the number and quality of peer reviews produced by this individual. This process implies the involvement of peer reviewers, journal editors and publishers and of a third, external, certification party. If implemented, this strategy could promote a virtuous circle, leading to an overall improvement of the process of peer review and ultimately of scientific publishing.
Similar articles
-
Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.Ethiop Med J. 2013 Apr;51(2):95-103. Ethiop Med J. 2013. PMID: 24079153
-
Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.Ann Behav Med. 2011 Aug;42(1):1-13. doi: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x. Ann Behav Med. 2011. PMID: 21505912
-
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?PLoS One. 2010 Apr 8;5(4):e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072. PLoS One. 2010. PMID: 20386704 Free PMC article.
-
A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.J Neurochem. 2016 Oct;139 Suppl 2:17-23. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13674. Epub 2016 Aug 17. J Neurochem. 2016. PMID: 27534728 Review.
-
Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.Saudi Med J. 2004 Jan;25(1 Suppl):S18-20. Saudi Med J. 2004. PMID: 14968186 Review.
Cited by
-
Editorial progress of the Colombia Medica Journal.Colomb Med (Cali). 2019 Dec 30;50(4):222-223. doi: 10.25100/cm.v50i4.4300. Colomb Med (Cali). 2019. PMID: 32476688 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps.Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):14-21. doi: 10.1177/14550725221092862. Epub 2022 Sep 1. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023. PMID: 36793486 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
