Peer review is a two-way process

What is better than a peer-review process?

The peer-review process.

Most authors experience that “sinking feeling” when reviewers’ comments and recommendations lead to rejection of a manuscript or the need for multiple revisions. It is important to bear in mind that this happens to most, if not all, scientists. Many times the reviewer or editor is correct, and with suitable revision, a better paper is ultimately published. Sometimes it is not. The author can th...

The peer-review process

The peer review process has been discussed at length in most of the established texts on the scholarly communication process, such as Ziman (1968), Ravetz (1973) and Meadows (1974). These authors agree that the four main functions of the scholarly literature are dissemination of current knowledge, archiving of the canonical knowledge base, quality control of published information, and assignmen...

A Review on the Editorial Peer Review

Background and Objectives: The editorial peer review has an important role in the publication of scientific articles. Peers or reviewers are those scholars who have the expertise regarding the topic of a given article. They critically appraise the articles without having any monetary incentives or conflicts of interest. The aim of this study was to determine the most important aspects of the ed...

Paving the way toward better peer review

D espite the growth of postpublication forums such as a Faculty of 1000, scientific blogs and online commenting, editor-mediated peer review remains the primary means by which science is evaluated ahead of publication. The peer review process critically relies on the report that is provided by the reviewers and that the editors consider in detail and discuss prior to making a decision on the pa...