Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Difference Between Clinical Peer Review Articles and Peer Review Articles

What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal office in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities inside inquiry communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for enquiry validation and has connected successfully with relatively small changes for some 350 years.

Reviewer journey picto

Background

Elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.

Peer review has been a formal office of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years agone. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Guild is idea to exist the commencement journal to formalize the peer review process under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms nigh the integrity of peer review, the bulk of the research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This opinion was endorsed by the outcome of a survey Elsevier and Sense Nigh Scientific discipline conducted in 2009 and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly arrangement surveys. Furthermore, a 2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium, saw 82 percent of researchers agreeing that "without peer review there is no control in scientific advice."

To learn more than nigh peer review, visit Elsevier's gratuitous e-learning platform Researcher University.

Peer review process picto

The peer review process

Peer review types picto

Types of peer review

Peer review comes in different flavours: you lot must therefore check which variant is employed by the periodical on which you are working so you're aware of the corresponding rules. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject customs only there is an increasing call towards more transparency around the peer review process. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you take been invited to review, consult the journal's homepage or contact the editorial function directly.

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the well-nigh common blazon by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymizedreview include:

  • Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.
  • Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a gamble to publish kickoff.
  • Reviewers may employ their anonymity as justification for beingness unnecessarily disquisitional or harsh when commenting on the authors' work.

Double anonymized review

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

  • Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, bookish status or previous publication history.
  • Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in heed that despite the above, reviewers can ofttimes place the author through their writing fashion, subject matter or cocky-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More data for authors can be plant in our double-anonymized peer review guidelines.

Triple anonymized review

With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Manufactures are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(south). However, it should be noted that:

  • the complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable
  • as with double anonymized review; in that location is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author's identity from their style, bailiwick matter, commendation patterns or a number of other methodologies

Open review

Open up peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review procedure. The most mutual definition of open up review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open up peer review consist of:

  • publication of reviewers' names on the commodity page.
  • publication of peer review reports alongside the commodity, whether signed or anonymous.
  • publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) together with authors' and editors' responses alongside the article.
  • publication of the paper after a quick cheque and opening a discussion forum to the community who can comment (named or anonymous).

Many believe this is the all-time style to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, foreclose reviewers from post-obit their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest procedure, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone downwardly criticism.

For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or bearding) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect (example).

Read more nigh the experiment

More transparent peer review

In general, transparency is the central to trust in peer review. Many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the commodity's handling editor on the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals likewise provide details well-nigh the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance.

Furthermore, in social club to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers near the editor'due south determination and their peers' recommendations.

ATS picto

Article transfer service: peer review cascade

Elsevier authors tin can transfer their article submission from one journal to another for gratis if they are rejected, without the need to reformat, and oft without needing farther peer review.

We therefore ask referees during the review procedure for their consent to transfer their full review written report (including all comments to the writer and editor) forth with the manuscript to the receiver journal. The benefits of full manuscript review cascades are twofold:

  • Reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for dissimilar journals.
  • Authors do not need to spend boosted time reformatting their manuscript.

Tools & resources picto

Tools and resources

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules

shepardsonmarreird.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

Post a Comment for "Difference Between Clinical Peer Review Articles and Peer Review Articles"