peer review in scientific research

• Science Notes Posts
• Contact Science Notes
• Todd Helmenstine Biography
• Anne Helmenstine Biography
• Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
• Periodic Table Wallpapers
• Interactive Periodic Table
• Periodic Table Posters
• Science Experiments for Kids
• How to Grow Crystals
• Chemistry Projects
• Fire and Flames Projects
• Holiday Science
• Chemistry Problems With Answers
• Physics Problems
• Unit Conversion Example Problems
• Chemistry Worksheets
• Biology Worksheets
• Periodic Table Worksheets
• Physical Science Worksheets
• Science Lab Worksheets
• My Amazon Books

Understanding Peer Review in Science

Peer review is an essential element of the scientific publishing process that helps ensure that research articles are evaluated, critiqued, and improved before release into the academic community. Take a look at the significance of peer review in scientific publications, the typical steps of the process, and and how to approach peer review if you are asked to assess a manuscript.

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by peers, who are people with comparable experience and competency. Peers assess each others’ work in educational settings, in professional settings, and in the publishing world. The goal of peer review is improving quality, defining and maintaining standards, and helping people learn from one another.

In the context of scientific publication, peer review helps editors determine which submissions merit publication and improves the quality of manuscripts prior to their final release.

Types of Peer Review for Manuscripts

There are three main types of peer review:

• Single-blind review: The reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Double-blind review: Both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
• Open peer review: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are disclosed, promoting transparency and collaboration.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each method. Anonymous reviews reduce bias but reduce collaboration, while open reviews are more transparent, but increase bias.

Key Elements of Peer Review

Proper selection of a peer group improves the outcome of the process:

• Expertise : Reviewers should possess adequate knowledge and experience in the relevant field to provide constructive feedback.
• Objectivity : Reviewers assess the manuscript impartially and without personal bias.
• Confidentiality : The peer review process maintains confidentiality to protect intellectual property and encourage honest feedback.
• Timeliness : Reviewers provide feedback within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely publication.

Steps of the Peer Review Process

The typical peer review process for scientific publications involves the following steps:

• Submission : Authors submit their manuscript to a journal that aligns with their research topic.
• Editorial assessment : The journal editor examines the manuscript and determines whether or not it is suitable for publication. If it is not, the manuscript is rejected.
• Peer review : If it is suitable, the editor sends the article to peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• Reviewer feedback : Reviewers provide feedback, critique, and suggestions for improvement.
• Revision and resubmission : Authors address the feedback and make necessary revisions before resubmitting the manuscript.
• Final decision : The editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewer comments.
• Publication : If accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal.

Pros and Cons

While the goal of peer review is improving the quality of published research, the process isn’t without its drawbacks.

• Quality assurance : Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of published research.
• Error detection : The process identifies errors and flaws that the authors may have overlooked.
• Credibility : The scientific community generally considers peer-reviewed articles to be more credible.
• Professional development : Reviewers can learn from the work of others and enhance their own knowledge and understanding.
• Time-consuming : The peer review process can be lengthy, delaying the publication of potentially valuable research.
• Bias : Personal biases of reviews impact their evaluation of the manuscript.
• Inconsistency : Different reviewers may provide conflicting feedback, making it challenging for authors to address all concerns.
• Limited effectiveness : Peer review does not always detect significant errors or misconduct.
• Poaching : Some reviewers take an idea from a submission and gain publication before the authors of the original research.

Steps for Conducting Peer Review of an Article

Generally, an editor provides guidance when you are asked to provide peer review of a manuscript. Here are typical steps of the process.

• Accept the right assignment: Accept invitations to review articles that align with your area of expertise to ensure you can provide well-informed feedback.
• Manage your time: Allocate sufficient time to thoroughly read and evaluate the manuscript, while adhering to the journal’s deadline for providing feedback.
• Read the manuscript multiple times: First, read the manuscript for an overall understanding of the research. Then, read it more closely to assess the details, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Evaluate the structure and organization: Check if the manuscript follows the journal’s guidelines and is structured logically, with clear headings, subheadings, and a coherent flow of information.
• Assess the quality of the research: Evaluate the research question, study design, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Consider whether the methods are appropriate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are supported by the data.
• Examine the originality and relevance: Determine if the research offers new insights, builds on existing knowledge, and is relevant to the field.
• Check for clarity and consistency: Review the manuscript for clarity of writing, consistent terminology, and proper formatting of figures, tables, and references.
• Identify ethical issues: Look for potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.
• Provide constructive feedback: Offer specific, actionable, and objective suggestions for improvement, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Don’t be mean.
• Organize your review: Structure your review with an overview of your evaluation, followed by detailed comments and suggestions organized by section (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion).
• Be professional and respectful: Maintain a respectful tone in your feedback, avoiding personal criticism or derogatory language.
• Proofread your review: Before submitting your review, proofread it for typos, grammar, and clarity.
• Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). “Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study”. Science . 341 (6152): 1331. doi: 10.1126/science.341.6152.1331
• Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). “Bias in peer review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1): 2–17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
• Slavov, Nikolai (2015). “Making the most of peer review”. eLife . 4: e12708. doi: 10.7554/eLife.12708
• Spier, Ray (2002). “The history of the peer-review process”. Trends in Biotechnology . 20 (8): 357–8. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
• Squazzoni, Flaminio; Brezis, Elise; Marušić, Ana (2017). “Scientometrics of peer review”. Scientometrics . 113 (1): 501–502. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4

Related Posts

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 12 November 2021

Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: an autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers

• Sin Wang Chong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4519-0544 1 &
• Shannon Mason 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  266 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

3249 Accesses

8 Citations

18 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

A Correction to this article was published on 26 November 2021

This article has been updated

Peer reviewers serve a vital role in assessing the value of published scholarship and improving the quality of submitted manuscripts. To provide more appropriate and systematic support to peer reviewers, especially those new to the role, this study documents the feedback practices and experiences of two award-winning peer reviewers in the field of education. Adopting a conceptual framework of feedback literacy and an autoethnographic-ecological lens, findings shed light on how the two authors design opportunities for feedback uptake, navigate responsibilities, reflect on their feedback experiences, and understand journal standards. Informed by ecological systems theory, the reflective narratives reveal how they unravel the five layers of contextual influences on their feedback practices as peer reviewers (micro, meso, exo, macro, chrono). Implications related to peer reviewer support are discussed and future research directions are proposed.

Similar content being viewed by others

The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship

What matters in the cultivation of student feedback literacy: exploring university efl teachers’ perceptions and practices, why english exploring chinese early career returnee academics’ motivations for writing and publishing in english, introduction.

The peer-review process is the longstanding method by which research quality is assured. On the one hand, it aims to assess the quality of a manuscript, with the desired outcome being (in theory if not always in practice) that only research that has been conducted according to methodological and ethical principles be published in reputable journals and other dissemination outlets (Starck, 2017 ). On the other hand, it is seen as an opportunity to improve the quality of manuscripts, as peers identify errors and areas of weakness, and offer suggestions for improvement (Kelly et al., 2014 ). Whether or not peer review is actually successful in these areas is open to considerable debate, but in any case it is the “critical juncture where scientific work is accepted for publication or rejected” (Heesen and Bright, 2020 , p. 2). In contemporary academia, where higher education systems across the world are contending with decreasing levels of public funding, there is increasing pressure on researchers to be ‘productive’, which is largely measured by the number of papers published, and of funding grants awarded (Kandiko, 2010 ), both of which involve peer review.

Researchers are generally invited to review manuscripts once they have established themselves in their disciplinary field through publication of their own research. This means that for early career researchers (ECRs), their first exposure to the peer-review process is generally as an author. These early experiences influence the ways ECRs themselves conduct peer review. However, negative experiences can have a profound and lasting impact on researchers’ professional identity. This appears to be particularly true when feedback is perceived to be unfair, with feedback tone largely shaping author experience (Horn, 2016 ). In most fields, reviewers remain anonymous to ensure freedom to give honest and critical feedback, although there are concerns that a lack of accountability can result in ‘bad’ and ‘rude’ reviews (Mavrogenis et al., 2020 ). Such reviews can negatively impact all researchers, but disproportionately impact underrepresented researchers (Silbiger and Stubler, 2019 ). Regardless of career phase, no one is served well by unprofessional reviews, which contribute to the ongoing problem of bullying and toxicity prevalent in academia, with serious implications on the health and well-being of researchers (Keashly and Neuman, 2010 ).

Because of its position as the central process through which research is vetted and refined, peer review should play a similarly central role in researcher training, although it rarely features. In surveying almost 3000 researchers, Warne ( 2016 ) found that support for reviewers was mostly received “in the form of journal guidelines or informally as advice from supervisors or colleagues” (p. 41), with very few engaging in formal training. Among more than 1600 reviewers of 41 nursing journals, only one third received any form of support (Freda et al., 2009 ), with participants across both of these studies calling for further training. In light of the lack of widespread formal training, most researchers learn ‘on the job’, and little is known about how researchers develop their knowledge and skills in providing effective assessment feedback to their peers. In this study, we undertake such an investigation, by drawing on our first-hand experiences. Through a collaborative and reflective process, we look to identify the forms and forces of our feedback literacy development, and seek to answer specifically the following research questions:

What are the exhibited features of peer reviewer feedback literacy?

What are the forces at work that affect the development of feedback literacy?

Literature review

Conceptualisation of feedback literacy.

The notion of feedback literacy originates from the research base of new literacy studies, which examines ‘literacies’ from a sociocultural perspective (Gee, 1999 ; Street, 1997 ). In the educational context, one of the most notable types of literacy is assessment literacy (Stiggins, 1999 ). Traditionally, assessment literacy is perceived as one of the indispensable qualities of a successful educator, which refers to the skills and knowledge for teachers “to deal with the new world of assessment” (Fulcher, 2012 , p. 115). Following this line of teacher-oriented assessment literacy, recent attempts have been made to develop more subject-specific assessment literacy constructs (e.g., Levi and Inbar-Lourie, 2019 ). Given the rise of student-centred approaches and formative assessment in higher education, researchers began to make the case for students to be ‘assessment literate’; comprising of such knowledge and skills as understanding of assessment standards, the relationship between assessment and learning, peer assessment, and self-assessment skills (Price et al., 2012 ). Feedback literacy, as argued by Winstone and Carless ( 2019 ), is essentially a subset of assessment literacy because “part of learning through assessment is using feedback to calibrate evaluative judgement” (p. 24). The notion of feedback literacy was first extensively discussed by Sutton ( 2012 ) and more recently by Carless and Boud ( 2018 ). Focusing on students’ feedback literacy, Sutton ( 2012 ) conceptualised feedback literacy as a three-dimensional construct—an epistemological dimension (what do I know about feedback?), an ontological dimension (How capable am I to understand feedback?), and a practical dimension (How can I engage with feedback?). In close alignment with Sutton’s construct, the seminal conceptual paper by Carless and Boud ( 2018 ) further illustrated the four distinctive abilities of feedback literate students: the abilities to (1) understand the formative role of feedback, (2) make informed and accurate evaluative judgement against standards, (3) manage emotions especially in the face of critical and harsh feedback, and (4) take action based on feedback. Since the publication of Carless and Boud ( 2018 ), student and teacher feedback literacy has been in the limelight of assessment research in higher education (e.g., Chong 2021b ; Carless and Winstone 2020 ). These conceptual contributions expand the notion of feedback literacy to consider not only the manifestations of various forms of effective student engagement with feedback but also the confluence of contexts and individual differences of students in developing students’ feedback literacy by drawing upon various theoretical perspectives (e.g., ecological systems theory; sociomaterial perspective) and disciplines (e.g., business and human resource management). Others address practicalities of feedback literacy; for example, how teachers and students can work in synergy to develop feedback literacy (Carless and Winstone, 2020 ) and ways to maximise student engagement with feedback at a curricular level (Malecka et al., 2020). In addition to conceptualisation, advancement of the notion of feedback literacy is evident in the recent proliferation of primary studies. The majority of these studies are conducted in the field of higher education, focusing mostly on student feedback literacy in classrooms (e.g., Molloy et al., 2019 ; Winstone et al., 2019 ) and in the workplace (Noble et al., 2020 ), with a handful focused on teacher feedback literacy (e.g., Xu and Carless 2016 ). Some studies focusing on student feedback literacy adopt a qualitative case study research design to delve into individual students’ experience of engaging with various forms of feedback. For example, Han and Xu ( 2019 ) analysed the profiles of feedback literacy of two Chinese undergraduate students. Findings uncovered students’ resistance to engagement with feedback, which relates to the misalignment between the cognitive, social, and affective components of individual students’ feedback literacy profiles. Others reported interventions designed to facilitate students’ uptake of feedback, focusing on their effectiveness and students’ perceptions. Specifically, affordances and constraints of educational technology such as electronic feedback portfolio (Chong, 2019 ; Winstone et al., 2019 ) are investigated. Of particular interest is a recent study by Noble et al. ( 2020 ), which looked into student feedback literacy in the workplace by probing into the perceptions of a group of Australian healthcare students towards a feedback literacy training programme conducted prior to their placement. There is, however, a dearth of primary research in other areas where elicitation, process, and enactment of feedback are vital; for instance, academics’ feedback literacy. In the ‘publish or perish’ culture of higher education, academics, especially ECRs, face immense pressure to publish in top-tiered journals in their fields and face the daunting peer-review process, while juggling other teaching and administrative responsibilities (Hollywood et al., 2019 ; Tynan and Garbett 2007 ). Taking up the role of authors and reviewers, researchers have to possess the capacity and disposition to engage meaningfully with feedback provided by peer reviewers and to provide constructive comments to authors. Similar to students, researchers have to learn how to manage their emotions in the face of critical feedback, to understand the formative values of feedback, and to make informed judgements about the quality of feedback (Gravett et al., 2019 ). At the same time, feedback literacy of academics also resembles that of teachers. When considering the kind of feedback given to authors, academics who serve as peer reviewers have to (1) design opportunities for feedback uptake, (2) maintain a professional and supportive relationship with authors, and (3) take into account the practical dimension of giving feedback (e.g., how to strike a balance between quality of feedback and time constraints due to multiple commitments) (Carless and Winstone 2020 ). To address the above, one of the aims of the present study is to expand the application of feedback literacy as a useful analytical lens to areas outside the classroom, that is, scholarly peer-review activities in academia, by presenting, analysing, and synthesising the personal experiences of the authors as successful peer reviewers for academic journals.

Conceptual framework

We adopt a feedback literacy of peer reviewers framework (Chong 2021a ) as an analytical lens to analyse, systemise, and synthesise our own experiences and practices as scholarly peer reviewers (Fig. 1 ). This two-tier framework includes a dimension on the manifestation of feedback literacy, which categorises five features of feedback literacy of peer reviewers, informed by student and teacher feedback literacy frameworks by Carless and Boud ( 2018 ) and Carless and Winstone ( 2020 ). When engaging in scholarly peer review, reviewers are expected to be able to provide constructive and formative feedback, which authors can act on in their revisions ( engineer feedback uptake ). Besides, peer reviewers who are usually full-time researchers or academics lead hectic professional lives; thus, when writing reviewers’ reports, it is important for them to consider practically and realistically the time they can invest and how their various degrees of commitment may have an impact on the feedback they provide ( navigate responsibilities ). Furthermore, peer reviewers should consider the emotional and relational influences their feedback exert on the authors. It is crucial for feedback to be not only informative but also supportive and professional (Chong, 2018 ) ( maintain relationships ). Equally important, it is imperative for peer reviewers to critically reflect on their own experience in the scholarly peer-review process, including their experience of receiving and giving feedback to academic peers, as well as the ways authors and editors respond to their feedback ( reflect on feedback experienc e). Lastly, acting as gatekeepers of journals to assess the quality of manuscripts, peer reviewers have to demonstrate an accurate understanding of the journals’ aims, remit, guidelines and standards, and reflect those in their written assessments of submitted manuscripts ( understand standards ). Situated in the context of scholarly peer review, this collaborative autoethnographic study conceptualises feedback literacy not only as a set of abilities but also orientations (London and Smither, 2002 ; Steelman and Wolfeld, 2016 ), which refers to academics’ tendency, beliefs, and habits in relation to engaging with feedback (London and Smither, 2002 ). According to Cheung ( 2000 ), orientations are influenced by a plethora of factors, namely experiences, cultures, and politics. It is important to understand feedback literacy as orientations because it takes into account that feedback is a convoluted process and is influenced by a plethora of contextual and personal factors. Informed by ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986 ; Neal and Neal, 2013 ) and synthesising existing feedback literacy models (Carless and Boud, 2018 ; Carless and Winstone, 2020 ; Chong, 2021a , 2021b ), we consider feedback literacy as a malleable, situated, and emergent construct, which is influenced by the interplay of various networked layers of ecological systems (Neal and Neal, 2013 ) (Fig. 1 ). Also important is that conceptualising feedback literacy as orientations avoids dichotomisation (feedback literate vs. feedback illiterate), emphasises the developmental nature of feedback literacy, and better captures the multifaceted manifestations of feedback engagement.

The outer ring of the figure shows the components of feedback literacy while the inner ring concerns the layers of contexts (ecosystems) which influence the manifestation of feedback literacy of peer reviewers.

Echoing recent conceptual papers on feedback literacy which emphasises the indispensable role of contexts (Chong 2021b ; Boud and Dawson, 2021 ; Gravett et al., 2019 ), our conceptual framework includes an underlying dimension of networked ecological systems (micro, meso, exo, macro, and chrono), which portrays the contextual forces shaping our feedback orientations. Informed by the networked ecological system theory of Neal and Neal ( 2013 ), we postulate that there are five systems of contextual influence, which affect the feedback experience and development of feedback literacy of peer reviewers. The five ecological systems refer to ‘settings’, which is defined by Bronfenbrenner ( 1986 ) as “place[s] where people can readily engage in social interactions” (p. 22). Even though Bronfenbrenner’s ( 1986 ) somewhat dated definition of ‘place’ is limited to ‘physical space’, we believe that ‘places’ should be more broadly defined in the 21st century to encompass physical and virtual, recent and dated, closed and distanced locations where people engage; as for ‘interactions’, from a sociocultural perspective, we understand that ‘interactions’ can include not only social, but also cognitive and emotional exchanges (Vygotsky, 1978 ). Microsystem refers to a setting where people, including the focal individual, interact. Mesosystem , on the other hand, means the interactions between people from different settings and the influence they exert on the focal individual. An exosystem , similar to a microsystem, is understood as a single setting but this setting excludes the focal individual but it is likely that participants in this setting would interact with the focal individual. The remaining two systems, macrosystem and chronosystem, refer not only to ‘settings’ but ‘forces that shape the patterns of social interactions that define settings’ (Neal and Neal, 2013 , p. 729). Macrosystem is “the set of social patterns that govern the formation and dissolution of… interactions… and thus the relationship among ecological systems” (ibid). Some examples of macrosystems given by Neal and Neal ( 2013 ) include political and cultural systems. Finally, chronosystem is “the observation that patterns of social interactions between individuals change over time, and that such changes impact on the focal individual” (ibid, p. 729). Figure 2 illustrates this networked ecological systems theory using a hypothetical example of an early career researcher who is involved in scholarly peer review for Journal A; at the same time, they are completing a PhD and are working as a faculty member at a university.

This is a hypothetical example of an early career researcher who is involved in scholarly peer review for Journal A.

From the reviewed literature on the construct of feedback literacy, the investigation of feedback literacy as a personal, situated, and unfolding process is best done through an autoethnographic lens, which underscores critical self-reflection. Autoethnography refers to “an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyse (graphy) personal experience (auto) in order to understand cultural experience (ethno)” (Ellis et al., 2011 , p. 273). Autoethnography stems from research in the field of anthropology and is later introduced to the fields of education by Ellis and Bochner ( 1996 ). In higher education research, autoethnographic studies are conducted to illuminate on topics related to identity and teaching practices (e.g., Abedi Asante and Abubakari, 2020 ; Hains-Wesson and Young 2016 ; Kumar, 2020 ). In this article, a collaborative approach to autoethnography is adopted. Based on Chang et al. ( 2013 ), Lapadat ( 2017 ) defines collaborative autoethnography (CAE) as follows:

… an autobiographic qualitative research method that combines the autobiographic study of self with ethnographic analysis of the sociocultural milieu within which the researchers are situated, and in which the collaborating researchers interact dialogically to analyse and interpret the collection of autobiographic data. (p. 598)

CAE is not only a product but a worldview and process (Wall, 2006 ). CAE is a discrete view about the world and research, which straddles between paradigmatic boundaries of scientific and literary studies. Similar to traditional scientific research, CAE advocates systematicity in the research process and consideration is given to such crucial research issues as reliability, validity, generalisability, and ethics (Lapadat, 2017 ). In closer alignment with studies on humanities and literature, the goal of CAE is not to uncover irrefutable universal truths and generate theories; instead, researchers of CAE are interested in co-constructing and analysing their own personal narratives or ‘stories’ to enrich and/or challenge mainstream beliefs and ideas, embracing diverse rather than canonical ways of behaviour, experience, and thinking (Ellis et al., 2011 ). Regarding the role of researchers, CAE researchers openly acknowledge the influence (and also vulnerability) of researchers throughout the research process and interpret this juxtaposition of identities between researchers and participants of research as conducive to offering an insider’s perspective to illustrate sociocultural phenomena (Sughrua, 2019 ). For our CAE on the scholarly peer-review experiences of two ECRs, the purpose is to reconstruct, analyse, and publicise our lived experience as peer reviewers and how multiple forces (i.e., ecological systems) interact to shape our identity, experience, and feedback practice. As a research process, CAE is a collaborative and dynamic reflective journey towards self-discovery, resulting in narratives, which connect with and add to the existing literature base in a personalised manner (Ellis et al., 2011 ). The collaborators should go beyond personal reflection to engage in dialogues to identify similarities and differences in experiences to throw new light on sociocultural phenomena (Merga et al., 2018 ). The iterative process of self- and collective reflections takes place when CAE researchers write about their own “remembered moments perceived to have significantly impacted the trajectory of a person’s life” and read each other’s stories (Ellis et al., 2011 , p. 275). These ‘moments’ or vignettes are usually written retrospectively, selectively, and systematically to shed light on facets of personal experience (Hughes et al., 2012 ). In addition to personal stories, some autoethnographies and CAEs utilise multiple data sources (e.g., reflective essays, diaries, photographs, interviews with co-researchers) and various ways of expressions (e.g., metaphors) to achieve some sort of triangulation and to present evidence in a ‘systematic’ yet evocative manner (Kumar, 2020 ). One could easily notice that overarching methodological principles are discussed in lieu of a set of rigid and linear steps because the process of reconstructing experience through storytelling can be messy and emergent, and certain degree of flexibility is necessary. However, autoethnographic studies, like other primary studies, address core research issues including reliability (reader’s judgement of the credibility of the narrator), validity (reader’s judgement that the narratives are believable), and generalisability (resemblance between the reader’s experience and the narrative, or enlightenment of the reader regarding unfamiliar cultural practices) (Ellis et al., 2011 ). Ethical issues also need to be considered. For example, authors are expected to be honest in reporting their experiences; to protect the privacy of the people who ‘participated’ in our stories, pseudonyms need to be used (Wilkinson, 2019 ). For the current study, we follow the suggested CAE process outlined by Chang et al. ( 2013 ), which includes four stages: deciding on topic and method , collecting materials , making meaning , and writing . When deciding on the topic, we decided to focus on our experience as scholarly peer reviewers because doing peer review and having our work reviewed are an indispensable part of our academic lives. The next is to collect relevant autoethnographic materials. In this study, we follow Kumar ( 2020 ) to focus on multiple data sources: (1) reflective essays which were written separately through ‘recalling’, which is referred to by Chang et al. ( 2013 ) as ‘a free-spirited way of bringing out memories about critical events, people, place, behaviours, talks, thoughts, perspectives, opinions, and emotions pertaining to the research topic’ (p. 113), and (2) discussion meetings. In our reflective essays, we included written records of reflection and excerpts of feedback in our peer-review reports. Following material collection is meaning making. CAE, as opposed to autoethnography, emphasises the importance of engaging in dialogues with collaborators and through this process we identify similarities and differences in our experiences (Sughrua, 2019 ). To do so, we exchanged our reflective essays; we read each other’s reflections and added questions or comments on the margins. Then, we met online twice to share our experiences and exchange views regarding the two reflective essays we wrote. Both meetings lasted for approximately 90 min, were audio-recorded and transcribed. After each meeting, we coded our stories and experiences with reference to the two dimensions of the ecological framework of feedback literacy (Fig. 1 ). With regards to coding our data, we followed the model of Miles and Huberman ( 1994 ), which comprises four stages: data reduction (abstracting data), data display (visualising data in tabular form), conclusion-drawing, and verification. The coding and writing processes were done collaboratively on Google Docs and care was taken to address the aforesaid ethical (e.g., honesty, privacy) and methodological issues (e.g., validity, reliability, generalisability). As a CAE study, the participants are the researchers themselves, that is, the two authors of this paper. We acknowledge that research data are collected from human subjects (from the two authors), such data are collected in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the School Research Ethics Committee at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast (Ref: 005_2021). Despite our different experiences in our unique training and employment contexts, we share some common characteristics, both being ECRs (<5 years post-PhD), working in the field of education, active in the scholarly publication process as both authors and peer reviewers. Importantly for this study, we were both recipients of Reviewer of the Year Award 2019 awarded jointly by the journal, Higher Education Research & Development and the publisher , Taylor & Francis. This award in recognition of the quality of our reviewing efforts, as determined by the editorial board of a prestigious higher education journal, provided a strong impetus for this study, providing an opportunity to reflect on our own experiences and practices. The extent of our peer-review activities during our early career leading up to the time of data collection is summarised in Table 1 .

Findings and discussion

Analysis of the four individual essays (E1 and E2 for each participant) and transcripts of the two subsequent discussions (D1 and D2) resulted in the identification of multiple descriptive codes and in turn a number of overarching themes (Supplementary Appendix 1). Our reporting of these themes is guided by our conceptual framework, where we first focus on the five manifestations of feedback literacy to highlight the experiences that contribute to our growth as effective and confident peer reviewers. Then, we report on the five ecological systems to unravel how each contextual layer develops our feedback literacy as peer reviewers. (Note that the discussion of the chronosystem has been necessarily incorporated into each of the four others dimensions: microsystem , mesosystem , exosystem , and macrosystem in order to demonstrate temporal changes). In particular, similarities and differences will be underscored, and connections with manifested feedback beliefs and behaviours will be made. We include quotes from both Author 1 (A1) and Author 2 (A2), in order to illustrate our findings, and to show the richness and depth of the data collected (Corden and Sainsbury, 2006 ). Transcribed quotes may be lightly edited while retaining meaning, for example through the removal of fillers and repetitions, which is generally accepted practice to ensure readability ( ibid ).

Manifestations of feedback literacy

Engineering feedback uptake.

The two authors have a strong sense of the purpose of peer review as promoting not only research quality, but the growth of researchers. One way that we engineer author uptake is to ensure that feedback is ‘clear’ (A2,E1), ‘explicit’ (A2,E1), ‘specific’ (A1,E1), and importantly ‘actionable… to ensure that authors can act on this feedback so that their manuscripts can be improved and ultimately accepted for publication’ (A1,E1). In less than favourable author outcomes, we ensure that there is reference to the role of the feedback in promoting the development of the manuscript, which A1 refers to as ‘promotion of a growth mindset’ (A1,E1). For example, after requesting a second round of major revisions, A2 ‘acknowledged the frustration that the author might have felt on getting further revisions by noting how much improvement was made to the paper, but also making clear the justification for sending it off for more work’ (A2,E1). We both note that we tend to write longer reviews when a rejection is the recommended outcome, as our ultimate goal is to aid in the development of a manuscript.

Rejections doesn’t mean a paper is beyond repair. It can still be fixed and improved; a rejection simply means that the fix may be too extensive even for multiple review cycles. It is crucial to let the authors whose manuscripts are rejected know that they can still act on the feedback to improve their work; they should not give up on their own work. I think this message is especially important to first-time authors or early career researchers. (A1,E1)

In promoting a growth mindset and in providing actionable feedback, we hope to ‘show the authors that I’m not targeting them, but their work’ (A1,D1). We particularly draw on our own experiences as ECRs, with first-hand understanding that ‘everyone takes it personally when they get rejected. Yeah. Moreover, it is hard to separate (yourself from the paper)’ (A2,D1).

Navigating responsibilities

As with most academics, the two authors have multiple pressures on their time, and there ‘isn’t much formal recognition or reward’ (A1,E1) and ‘little extrinsic incentive for me to review’ (A2,E1). Nevertheless we both view our roles as peer reviewers as ‘an important part of the process’ (A2,E1), ‘a modest way for me to give back to the academic community’ (A1,E1). Through peer review we have built a sense of ‘identity as an academic’ (A1,D1), through ‘being a member of the academic community’ (A2,D1). While A1 commits to ‘review as many papers as possible’ (A1,E1) and A2 will usually accept offers to review, there are still limits on our time and therefore we consider the topic and methods employed when deciding whether or not to accept an invitation, as well as the journal itself, as we feel we can review more efficiently for journals with which we are more familiar. A1 and A2 have different processes for conducting their review that are most efficient for their own situations. For A1, the process begins with reading the whole manuscript in one go, adding notes to the pdf document along the way, which he then reviews, and makes a tentative decision, including ‘a few reasons why I have come to this decision’ (A1,E1). After waiting at least one day, he reviews all of the notes and begins writing the report, which is divided into the sections of the paper. He notes it ‘usually takes me 30–45 min to write a report. I then proofread this report and submit it to the system. So it usually takes me no more than three hours to complete a review’ (A1,E1). For A2, the process for reviewing and structuring the report is quite different, with a need to ‘just find small but regular opportunities to work on the review’ (A2,E1). As was the case during her Ph.D, which involved juggling research and raising two babies, ‘I’ve trained myself to be able to do things in bits’ (A2,D1). So A2 also begins by reading the paper once through, although generally without making initial comments. The next phase involves going through the paper at various points in time whenever possible, and at the same time building up the report, making the report structurally slightly different to that of A1.

What my reviews look like are bullet points, basically. And they’re not really in a particular order. They generally… follow the flow (of the paper). But I mean, I might think of something, looking at the methods and realise, hey, you haven’t defined this concept in the literature review so I’ll just add you haven’t done this. And so I will usually preface (the review)… Here’s a list of suggestions. Some of them are minor, some of them are serious, but they’re in no particular order. (A1,D1)

As such, both reviewers engage in personalised strategies to make more effective use of their time. Both A1 and A2 give explicit but not exhaustive examples of an area of concern, and they also pose questions for the author to consider, in both cases placing the onus back on the author to take action. As A1 notes, ‘I’m not going to do a summary of that reference for you. I’m just going to include that there. If you’d like you can check it out’ (A1,D1). For A2, a lack of adequate reporting of the methods employed in a study makes it difficult to proceed, and in such cases will not invest further time, sending it back to the editor, because ‘I can’t even comment on the findings… I can’t go on. I’m not gonna waste my time’ (A2,D1). In cases where the authors may be ‘on the fence’ about a particular review, they will use the confidential comments to the editor to help work through difficult cases as ‘they are obviously very experienced reviewers’ (A1,D1). Delegating tasks to the expertise of the editorial teams when appropriate also ensures time is used more prudently.

Maintaining relationships

Except in a few cases where A2 has reviewed for journals with a single-blind model, the vast majority of the reviews that we have completed have been double-blind. This means that we are unaware of the identity of the author/s, and we are unknown to them. However, ‘even with blind-reviews I tend to think of it as a conversation with a person’ (A2,E1). A1 talks about the need to have respect for the author and their expertise and effort ‘regardless of the quality of the submission (which can be in some cases subjective)’ (A1,E1). A2 writes similarly about the ‘privilege’ and ‘responsibility’ of being able to review manuscripts that authors ‘have put so much time and energy into possibly over an extended period’ (A2,E1). In this way it is possible to develop a sort of relationship with an author even without knowing their identity. In trying to articulate the nature of that relationship (which we struggle to do so definitively), we note that it is more than just a reviewer, and A2 reflected on a recent review, which went through a number of rounds of resubmission where ‘it felt like we were developing a relationship, more like a mentor than a reviewer’ (A2,E1).

I consider this role as a peer reviewer more than giving helpful and actionable feedback; I would like to be a supporter and critical friend to the authors, even though in most cases I don’t even know who they are or what career stage they are at (A1,E1).

In any case, as A1 notes, ‘we don’t even need to know who that person is because we know that people like encouragement’ (A1,D1), and we are very conscious of the emotional impact that feedback can have on authors, and the inherent power imbalance in the relationship. For this reason, A1 is ‘cautious about the way I write so that I don’t accidentally make the authors the target of my feedback’. As A2 notes ‘I don’t want authors feeling depressed after reading a review’ (A2,E1). While we note that we try to deliver our feedback with ‘respect’ (A1,E1; A1,E2; A2,D1) ‘empathy’ (A1,E1), and ‘kindness’ (A2,D1), we both noted that we do not ‘sugar coat’ our feedback and A1 describes himself as ‘harsh’ and ‘critical’ (A1,E1) while A2 describes herself as ‘pretty direct’ (A2,E1). In our discussion, we tried to delve into this seeming contradiction:… the encouragement, hopefully is to the researcher, but the directness it should be, I hope, is related directly to whatever it is, the methods or the reporting or the scope of the literature review. It’s something specific about the manuscript itself. And I know myself, being an ECR and being reviewed, that it’s hard to separate yourself from your work… And I want to make it really explicit. If it’s critical, it’s not about the person. It’s about the work, you know, the weakness of the work, but not the person. (A2,D1)

A1 explains that at times his initial report may be highly critical, and at times he will ‘sit back and rethink… With empathy, I will write feedback, which is more constructive’ (A1,E1). However, he adds that ‘I will never try to overrate a piece or sugar-coat my comments just to sound “friendly”’ (A1,E1), with the ultimate goal being to uphold academic rigour. Thus, honesty is seen as the best strategy to maintain a strong, professional relationship with reviewers. Another strategy employed by A2 is showing explicit commitment to the review process. One way this is communicated is by prefacing a review with a summary of the paper, not only ‘to confirm with the author that I am interpreting the findings in the way that they intended, but also importantly to show that I have engaged with the paper’ (A2,E1). Further, if the recommendation is for a further round of review, she will state directly to the authors ‘that I would be happy to review a revised manuscript’ (A2,E1).

Reflecting on feedback experience

As ECRs we have engaged in the scholarly publishing process initially as authors, subsequently as reviewers, and most recently as Associate Editors. Insights gained in each of these roles have influenced our feedback practices, and have interacted to ‘develop a more holistic understanding of the whole review process’ (A1,E1).

We reflect on our experiences as authors beginning in our doctoral candidatures, with reviews that ranged from ‘the most helpful to the most cynical’ (A1,E1). A2 reflected on two particular experiences both of which resulted in rejection, one being ‘snarky’ and ‘unprofessional’ with ‘no substance’, the other providing ‘strong encouragement … the focus was clearly on the paper and not me personally’ (A2,E1). It was this experience that showed the divergence between the tone and content of review despite the same outcome, and as result A2 committed to being ‘ the amazing one’. A1 also drew from a negative experience noting that ‘I remember the least useful feedback as much as I do with the most constructive one’ (A1,E1). This was particularly the case when a reviewer made apparently politically-motivated judgements that A1 ‘felt very uncomfortable with’ and flagged with the editor (A1,E1). Through these experiences both authors wrote in their essays about the need to focus on the work and not on the individual, with an understanding that a review ‘can have a really serious impact’ (A2,D1) on an author.

It is important to note that neither authors have been involved in any formal or informal training on how to conduct peer review, although A1 expresses appreciation of the regular practice of one journal for which he reviews, where ‘the editor would write an email to the reviewers giving feedback on the feedback we have given’ (A1,E1). For A2, an important source of learning is in comparing her reviews with that of others who have reviewed the same manuscript, the norm for some journals being to send all reports to all reviewers along with the final decision.

I’m always interested to see how [my] review compares with others. Have I given the same recommendation? Have I identified the same areas of weakness? Have I formatted my review in the same way? How does the tone of delivery differ? I generally find that I give a similar if not the same response to other reviews, and I’m happy to see that I often pick up the same issues with methodology. (A2,E1)

For A2 there is comfort in seeing reviews that are similar to others, although we both draw on experiences where our recommendation diverged from others, with a source of assurance being the ultimate decision of the editor.

So it’s like, I don’t think it can be published and that [other] reviewer thinks it’s excellent. So usually, what the editor would do in this instance is invite the third one. Right, yeah. But then this editor told me… that they decided to go with my decision to reject because they find that my comments are more convincing. (A1,D1)

A2 also was surprised to read another report of the same manuscript she reviewed, that raised similar concerns and gave the same recommendation for major revisions, but noted the ‘wording is soooo snarky. What need?’ (A2,E1). In one case that A1 detailed in our first discussion, significant but improbable changes made to the methodology section of a resubmitted paper caused him to question the honesty of the reporting, making him ‘uncomfortable’ and as a result reported his concerns to the editor. In this case the review took some time to craft, trying to balance the ‘fine line between catering for the emotion [of the author], right, and upholding the academic standards’ (A1,D1). While he conceded initially his report was ‘kind of too harsh… later I think I rephrased it a little bit, I kind of softened (it)’.

While the role of Associate Editor is very new to A2 and thus was yet unable to comment, for A1 the ‘opportunity to read various kinds of comments given by reviewers’ (A1,E1) is viewed favourably. This includes not only how reviewers structure their feedback, but also how they use the confidential comments to the editors to express their thoughts more openly, providing important insights into the process that are largely hidden.

Understanding standards

While our reviewing practices are informed more broadly ‘according to more general academic standards of the study itself, and the clarity and fullness of the reporting’ (A2,E1), we look in the first instance to advice and guidelines from journals to develop an understanding of journal-specific standards, although A2 notes that a lack of review guidelines for one of the earliest journals she reviewed led her to ‘searching Google for standard criteria’ (A2,E1). However, our development in this area seems to come from developing a familiarity with a journal, particularly through engagement with the journal as an author.

In addition to reading the scope and instructions for authors to obtain such basic information as readership, length of submissions, citation style, the best way for me to understand the requirements and preferences of the journals is my own experience as an author. I review for journals which I have published in and for those which I have not. I always find it easier to make a judgement about whether the manuscripts I review meet the journal’s standards if I have published there before. (A1,E1)

Indeed, it seems that journal familiarity is connected closely to our confidence in reviewing, and while both authors ‘review for journals which I have published in and for those which I have not’ (A1,E1), A2 states that she is reluctant to ‘readily accept an offer to review for a journal that I’m not familiar with’, and A1 takes extra time to ‘do more preparatory work before I begin reading the manuscript and writing the review’ when reviewing for an unfamiliar journal.

Ecological systems

Microsystem.

Three microsystems exert influence on A1’s and A2’s development of feedback literacy: university, journal community, and Twitter.

In regards to the university, we are full-time academics in research-intensive universities in the UK and Japan where expectations for academics include publishing research in high-impact journals ‘which is vital to promotion’ (A1,E2). It is especially true in A2’s context where the national higher education agenda is to increase world rankings of universities. Thus, ‘there is little value placed on peer review, as it is not directly related to the broader agenda’ (A2,E2). When considering his recent relocation to the UK together with the current pandemic, A1 navigated his responsibilities within the university context and decided to allocate more time to his university-related responsibilities, especially providing learning and pastoral support to his students, who are mostly international students. Besides, A2 observed that there is a dearth of institution-wide support on conducting peer review although ‘there are a lot of training opportunities related to how to write academic papers in English, how to present at international conferences, how to write grant applications’, etc. (A2,E2). As a result, she ‘struggled for a couple of years’ because of the lack of institutional support for her development as a peer reviewer’ (A2,D2); but this helplessness also motivated her to seek her own ways to learn how to give feedback, such as ‘seeing through glimpses of other reviews, how others approach it, in terms of length, structure, tone, foci etc.’ (A2,E2). A1 shares the same view that no training is available at his institution to support his development as a peer reviewer. However, his postgraduate supervision experiences enabled him to reflect on how his feedback can benefit researchers. In our second online discussion, A1 shared that he held individual advising sessions with some postgraduate students, which made him realise that it is important for feedback to serve the function to inspire rather than to ‘give them right answers’ (A1,D2).

Because of the lack of formal training provided by universities, both authors searched for other professional communities to help us develop our expertise in giving feedback as peer reviewers, with journal communities being the next microsystem. We found that international journals provide valuable opportunities for us to understand more about the whole peer-review process, in particular the role of feedback. For A1, the training which he received from the editor-in-chief when he took up the associate editorship of a language education journal two years ago was particularly useful. A1 benefited greatly from meetings with the editor who walked him through every stage in the review process and provided ‘hands-on experience on how to handle delicate scenarios’ (A1,E2). Since then, A1 has had plenty of opportunities to oversee various stages of peer review and read a large number of reviewers’ reports which helped him gain ‘a holistic understanding of the peer-review process’ (A1,E2) and gradually made him become more cognizant of how he wants to give feedback. Although there was no explicit instruction on the technical aspect of giving feedback, A1 found that being an associate editor has developed his ‘consciousness’ and ‘awareness’ of giving feedback as a peer reviewer (A1,D2). Further, he felt that his editorial experiences provided him the awareness to constantly refine and improve his ways of giving feedback, especially ways to make his feedback ‘more structured, evidence-based, and objective’ (A1,E2). Despite not reflecting from the perspective of an editor, A2 recalled her experience as an author who received in-depth and constructive feedback from a reviewer, which really impacted the way she viewed the whole review process. She understood from this experience that even though the paper under review may not be particularly strong, peer reviewers should always aim to provide formative feedback which helps the authors to improve their work. These positive experiences of the two authors are impactful on the ways they give feedback as peer reviewers. In addition, close engagement with a specific journal has helped A2 to develop a sense of belonging, making it ‘much more than a journal, but also a way to become part of an academic community’ (A2,E2). With such a sense of belonging, it is more likely for her to be ‘pulled towards that journal than others’ when she can only review a limited number of manuscripts (A2,D2).

Another professional community in which we are both involved is Twitter. We regard Twitter as a platform for self-learning, reflection, and inspiration. We perceive Twitter as a space where we get to learn from others’ peer-review experiences and disciplinary practices. For example, A1 found the tweets on peer-review informative ‘because they are written by different stakeholders in the process—the authors, editors, reviewers’ and offer ‘different perspectives and sometimes different versions of the same story’ (A1,E2). A2 recalled a tweet she came across about the ‘infamous Reviewer 2’ and how she learned to not make the same mistakes (A2,D2). Reading other people’s experiences helps us reconsider our own feedback practices and, more broadly, the whole peer-review system because we ‘get a glimpse of the do’s and don’ts for peer reviewers’ (A1,E2).

Further to our three common microsystems, A2 also draws on a unique microsystem, that of her former profession as a teacher, which shapes her feedback practices in three ways. First, in her four years of teacher training, a lot of emphasis was placed on assessment and feedback such as ‘error correction’; this understanding related to giving feedback to students and was solidified through ‘learning on the job’ (A2,D2). Second, A2 acknowledges that as a teacher, she has a passion to ‘guide others in their knowledge and skill development… and continue this in our review practices’ (A2,E2). Finally, her teaching experience prepared her to consider the authors’ emotional responses in her peer-review feedback practices, constantly ‘thinking there’s a person there who’s going to be shattered getting a rejection’ (A2,D2).

Mesosystem considers the confluence of our interactions in various microsystems. Particularly, we experienced a lack of support from our institutions, which pushed us to seek alternative paths to acquire the art of giving feedback. This has made us realise the importance of self-learning in developing feedback literacy as peer reviewers, especially in how to develop constructive and actionable feedback. Both authors self-learn how to give feedback by reading others’ feedback. A1 felt ‘fortunate to be involved in journal editing and Twitter’ because he gets ‘a glimpse of how other peer reviewers give feedback to authors’ (A1,E2). A2, on the other hand, learned through her correspondences with a journal editor who made her stop ‘looking for every word’ and move away from ‘over proofreading and over editing’ (A2,D2).

Focusing on the chronosystem, it is noticed that both authors adjusted how they give feedback over time because of the aggregated influence of their microsystems. What stands out is that they have become more strategic in giving feedback. One way this is achieved is through focusing their comments on the arguments of the manuscripts instead of burning the midnight oil with error-correcting.

Exosystem concerns the environment where the focal individuals do not have direct interactions with the people in it but have access to information about. In his case, A1’s understanding of advising techniques promoted by a self-access language learning centre is conducive to the cultivation of his feedback literacy. Although A1 is not a part of the language advising team, he has a working relationship with the director. A1 was especially impressed by the learner-centeredness of an advising process:

The primary duty of the language advisor is not to be confused with that of a language teacher. Language teachers may teach a lecture on a linguistic feature or correct errors on an essay, but language advisors focus on designing activities and engaging students in dialogues to help them reflect on their own learning needs… The advisors may also suggest useful resources to the students which cater to their needs. In short, language advisors work in partnership with the students to help them improve their language while language teachers are often perceived as more authoritative figures (A1, E2).

His understanding of advising has affected how A1 provides feedback as a peer reviewer in a number of ways. First, A1 places much more emphasis on humanising his feedback, for example, by considering ‘ways to work in partnership with the authors and making this “partnership mindset” explicit to the authors through writing’ (A1,E2). One way to operationalise this ‘partnership mindset’ in peer review is to ‘ask a lot of questions’ and provide ‘multiple suggestions’ for the authors to choose from (A1,E2). Furthermore, his knowledge of the difference between feedback as giving advice and feedback as instruction has led him to include feedback, which points authors to additional resources. Below is a feedback point A1 gave in one of his reviews:

The description of the data analysis process was very brief. While we are not aiming at validity and reliability in qualitative studies, it is important for qualitative researchers to describe in detail how the data collected were analysed (e.g. iterative coding, inductive/deductive coding, thematic analysis) in order to ascertain that the findings were credible and trustworthy. See Johnny Saldaña’s ‘The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers’.

Another exosystem that we have knowledge about is formal peer-review training courses provided by publishers. These online courses are usually run asynchronously. Even though we did not enrol in these courses, our interest in peer review has led us to skim the content of these courses. Both of us questioned the value of formal peer-review training in developing feedback literacy of peer reviewers. For example, A2 felt that opportunities to review are more important because they ‘put you in that position where you have responsibility and have to think critically about how you are going to respond’ (A2,D2). To A1, formal peer-review training mostly focuses on developing peer reviewers’ ‘understanding of the whole mechanism’ but not providing ‘training on how to give feedback… For example, do you always ask a question without giving the answers you know? What is a good suggestion?’ (A1,D2).

Macrosystem

The two authors have diverse sociocultural experiences because of their family backgrounds and work contexts. When reflecting on their sociocultural experiences, A1 focused on his upbringing in Hong Kong where both of his parents are school teachers and his professional experience as a language teacher in secondary and tertiary education in Hong Kong while A2 discussed her experience of working in academia in Japan as an anglophone.

Observing his parents’ interactions with their students in schools, A1 was immersed in an Asian educational discourse characterised by ‘mutual respect and all sorts of formality’ (A1,E2). After he finished university, A1 became a school teacher and then a university lecturer (equivalent to a teaching fellow in the UK), getting immersed continuously in the etiquette of educational discourse in Hong Kong. Because of this, A1 knows that being professional means to be ‘formal and objective’ and there is a constant expectation to ‘treat people with respect’ (A1,E2). At the same time, his parents are unlike typical Asian parents; they are ‘more open-minded’, which made him more willing to listen and ‘consider different perspectives’ (A1,D2). Additionally, social hierarchy also impacted his approach to giving feedback as a peer reviewer. A1 started his career as a school teacher and then a university lecturer in Hong Kong with no formal research training. After obtaining his BA and MA, it is not until recently that A1 obtained his PhD by Prior Publication. Perhaps because of his background as a frontline teacher, A1 did not regard himself as ‘a formally trained researcher’ and perceived himself as not ‘elite enough to give feedback to other researchers’ (A1,E2). Both his childhood and his self-perceived identity have led to the formation of two feedback strategies: asking questions and providing a structured report mimicking the sections in the manuscript. A1 frequently asks questions in his reports ‘in a bid to offset some of the responsibilities to the authors’ (A1,E2). A1 struggles to decide whether to address authors using second- or third-person pronouns. A1 consistently uses third-person pronouns in his feedback because he wants to sound ‘very formal’ (A1,D2). However, A1 shared that he has recently started using second-person pronouns to make his feedback more interactive.

A2, on the other hand, pondered upon her sociocultural experiences as a school teacher in Australia, her position as an anglophone in a Japanese university, and her status as first-generation high school graduate. Reflecting on her career as a school teacher, A2 shared that her students had high expectations on her feedback:

So if you give feedback that seems unfair, you know … they’ll turn around and say, ‘What are you talking about’? They’re going to react back if your feedback is not clear. I think a lot of them [the students] appreciate the honesty. (A2,D2)

A2 acknowledges that her identity as a native English speaker has given her the advantage to publish extensively in international journals because of her high level of English proficiency and her access to ‘data from the US and from Australia which are more marketable’ (A2,D2). At the same time, as a native English speaker, she has empathy for her Japanese colleagues who struggle to write proficiently in English and some who even ‘pay thousands of dollars to have their work translated’ (A2,D2). Therefore, when giving feedback as a peer reviewer, she tries not to make a judgement on an author’s English proficiency and will not reject a paper based on the standard of English alone. Finally, as a first-generation scholar without any previous connections to academia, she struggles with belonging and self-confidence. As a result she notes that it usually takes her a long time to complete a review because she would like to be sure what she is saying is ‘right or constructive and is not on the wrong track’ (A2,D2).

Implications and future directions

In investigating the manifestations of the authors’ feedback literacy development, and the ecological systems in which this development occurs, this study unpacks the various sources of influence behind our feedback behaviours as two relatively new but highly commended peer reviewers. The findings show that our feedback literacy development is highly personalised and contextualised, and the sources of influence are diverse and interconnected, albeit largely informal. Our peer-review practices are influenced by our experiences within academia, but influences are much broader and begin much earlier. Peer-review skills were enhanced through direct experience not only in peer review but also in other activities related to the peer-review process, and as such more hands-on, on-site feedback training for peer reviewers may be more appropriate than knowledge-based training. The authors gain valuable insights from seeing the reviews of others, and as this is often not possible until scholars take on more senior roles within journals, co-reviewing is a potential way for ECRs to gain experience (McDowell et al., 2019 ). We draw practical and moral support from various communities, particularly online to promote “intellectual candour”, which refers to honest expressions of vulnerability for learning and trust building (Molloy and Bearman, 2019 , p. 32); in response to this finding we have developed an online community of practice, specifically as a space for discussing issues related to peer review (a Twitter account called “Scholarly Peers”). Importantly, our review practices are a product not only of how we review, but why we review, and as such training should not focus solely on the mechanics of review, but extend to its role within academia, and its impact not only on the quality of scholarship, but on the growth of researchers.

The significance of this study is its insider perspective, and the multifaceted framework that allows the capturing of the complexity of factors that influence individual feedback literacy development of two recognised peer reviewers. It must be stressed that the findings of this study are highly idiosyncratic, focusing on the experiences of only two peer reviewers and the educational research discipline. While the research design is such that it is not an attempt to describe a ‘typical’ or ‘expected’ experience, the scope of the study is a limitation, and future research could be expanded to studies of larger cohorts in order to identify broader trends. In this study, we have not included the reviewer reports themselves, and these reports provide a potentially rich source of data, which will be a focus in our continued investigation in this area. Further research could also investigate the role that peer-review training courses play in the feedback literacy development and practices of new and experienced peer reviewers. Since journal peer review is a communication process, it is equally important to investigate authors’ perspectives and experiences, especially pertaining to how authors interpret reviewers’ feedback based on the ways that it is written.

Data availability

Because of the sensitive nature of the data these are not made available.

Change history

26 november 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00996-3

Abedi Asante L, Abubakari Z (2020) Pursuing PhD by publication in geography: a collaborative autoethnography of two African doctoral researchers. J Geogr High Educ 45(1):87–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1803817

Article   Google Scholar  

Boud D, Dawson P (2021). What feedback literate teachers do: An empirically-derived competency framework. Assess Eval High Educ. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1910928

Bronfenbrenner U (1986) Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Res Perspect Dev Psychol 22:723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

Carless D, Boud D (2018) The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assess Eval High Educ 43(8):1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Carless D, Winstone N (2020) Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teach High Educ, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372

Chang H, Ngunjiri FW, Hernandez KC (2013) Collaborative autoethnography. Left Coast Press

Cheung D (2000) Measuring teachers’ meta-orientations to curriculum: application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. The J Exp Educ 68(2):149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970009598500

Chong SW (2021a) Improving peer-review by developing peer reviewers’ feedback literacy. Learn Publ 34(3):461–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1378

Chong SW (2021b) Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective. Assess Eval High Educ 46(1):92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765

Chong SW (2019) College students’ perception of e-feedback: a grounded theory perspective. Assess Eval High Educ 44(7):1090–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067

Chong SW (2018) Interpersonal aspect of written feedback: a community college students’ perspective. Res Post-Compul Educ 23(4):499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2018.1526906

Corden A, Sainsbury R (2006) Using verbatim quotations in reporting qualitative social research: the views of research users. University of York Social Policy Research Unit

Ellis C, Adams TE, Bochner AP (2011) Autoethnography: An Overview. Historical Soc Res, 12:273–290

Ellis C, Bochner A (1996) Composing ethnography: Alternative forms of qualitative writing. Sage

Freda MC, Kearney MH, Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty M (2009) Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. J Profession Nurs 25(2):101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2008.08.007

Fulcher G (2012) Assessment literacy for the language classroom. Lang Assess Quart 9(2):113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642041

Gee JP (1999) Reading and the new literacy studies: reframing the national academy of sciences report on reading. J Liter Res 3(3):355–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969909548052

Gravett K, Kinchin IM, Winstone NE, Balloo K, Heron M, Hosein A, Lygo-Baker S, Medland E (2019) The development of academics’ feedback literacy: experiences of learning from critical feedback via scholarly peer review. Assess Eval High Educ 45(5):651–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1686749

Hains-Wesson R, Young K (2016) A collaborative autoethnography study to inform the teaching of reflective practice in STEM. High Educ Res Dev 36(2):297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1196653

Han Y, Xu Y (2019) Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: a case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teach High Educ, https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410

Heesen R, Bright LK (2020) Is Peer Review a Good Idea? Br J Philos Sci, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz029

Hollywood A, McCarthy D, Spencely C, Winstone N (2019) ‘Overwhelmed at first’: the experience of career development in early career academics. J Furth High Educ 44(7):998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636213

Horn SA (2016) The social and psychological costs of peer review: stress and coping with manuscript rejection. J Manage Inquiry 25(1):11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615586597

Hughes S, Pennington JL, Makris S (2012) Translating Autoethnography Across the AERA Standards: Toward Understanding Autoethnographic Scholarship as Empirical Research. Educ Researcher, 41(6):209–219

Kandiko CB(2010) Neoliberalism in higher education: a comparative approach. Int J Art Sci 3(14):153–175. http://www.openaccesslibrary.org/images/BGS220_Camille_B._Kandiko.pdf

Keashly L, Neuman JH (2010) Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education-causes, consequences, and management. Adm Theory Prax 32(1):48–70. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806320103

Kelly J, Sadegieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. J Int Fed Clin Chem Labor Med 25(3):227–243. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

Google Scholar  

Kumar KL (2020) Understanding and expressing academic identity through systematic autoethnography. High Educ Res Dev, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799950

Lapadat JC (2017) Ethics in autoethnography and collaborative autoethnography. Qual Inquiry 23(8):589–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704462

Levi T, Inbar-Lourie O (2019) Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy: learning from the teachers. Lang Assess Quarter 17(2):168–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1692347

London MS, Smither JW (2002) Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Hum Res Manage Rev 12(1):81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2

Malecka B, Boud D, Carless D (2020) Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teach High Educ, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1754784

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthopaed 44(3):413–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1

McDowell GS, Knutsen JD, Graham JM, Oelker SK, Lijek RS (2019) Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. ELife 8:e48425. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48425

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Merga MK, Mason S, Morris JE (2018) Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach. Learn Publ 31(4):381–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1192

Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edn.). Sage

Molloy E, Bearman M (2019) Embracing the tension between vulnerability and credibility: ‘Intellectual candour’ in health professions education. Med Educ 53(1):32–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13649

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Molloy E, Boud D, Henderson M (2019) Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assess Eval High Educ 45(4):527–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955

Neal JW, Neal ZP (2013) Nested or networked? Future directions for ecological systems theory. Soc Dev 22(4):722–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12018

Noble C, Billett S, Armit L, Collier L, Hilder J, Sly C, Molloy E (2020) “It’s yours to take”: generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 25(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09905-5

Price M, Rust C, O’Donovan B, Handley K, Bryant R (2012) Assessment literacy: the foundation for improving student learning. Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Starck JM (2017) Scientific peer review: guidelines for informative peer review. Springer Spektrum

Steelman LA, Wolfeld L (2016) The manager as coach: the role of feedback orientation. J Busi Psychol 33(1):41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9473-6

Stiggins RJ (1999) Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs. Educ Meas: Issue Pract 18(1):23–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1999.tb00004.x

Street B (1997) The implications of the ‘new literacy studies’ for literacy Education. Engl Educ 31(3):45–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.1997.tb00133.x

Sughrua WM (2019) A nomenclature for critical autoethnography in the arena of disciplinary atomization. Cult Stud Crit Methodol 19(6):429–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619863459

Sutton P (2012) Conceptualizing feedback literacy: knowing, being, and acting. Innov Educ Teach Int 49(1):31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.647781

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Tynan BR, Garbett DL (2007) Negotiating the university research culture: collaborative voices of new academics. High Educ Res Dev 26(4):411–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658617

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press

Wall S (2006) An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. Int J Qual Methods 5(2):146–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500205

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Warne V (2016) Rewarding reviewers-sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publ 29:41–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002

Wilkinson S (2019) The story of Samantha: the teaching performances and inauthenticities of an early career human geography lecturer. High Educ Res Dev 38(2):398–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1517731

Winstone N, Carless D (2019) Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: a learning-focused approach. Routledge

Winstone NE, Mathlin G, Nash RA (2019) Building feedback literacy: students’ perceptions of the developing engagement with feedback toolkit. Front Educ 4:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00039

Xu Y, Carless D (2016) ‘Only true friends could be cruelly honest’: cognitive scaffolding and social-affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assess Eval High Educ 42(7):1082–1094. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1226759

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK

Sin Wang Chong

Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan

Shannon Mason

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sin Wang Chong .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

We acknowledge that research data are collected from human subjects (from the two authors), such data are collected in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the School Research Ethics Committee at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast (Ref: 005_2021).

Informed consent

Since the participants are the two authors, there is no informed consent form.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemental material file #1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Chong, S.W., Mason, S. Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: an autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 266 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00951-2

Download citation

Received : 02 August 2021

Accepted : 12 October 2021

Published : 12 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00951-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles

• First Online: 20 January 2017

Cite this chapter

• Pali U. K. De Silva 3 &
• Candace K. Vance 3  

Part of the book series: Fascinating Life Sciences ((FLS))

1429 Accesses

10 Citations

Peer review of scholarly articles is a mechanism used to assess and preserve the trustworthiness of reporting of scientific findings. Since peer reviewing is a qualitative evaluation system that involves the judgment of experts in a field about the quality of research performed by their colleagues (and competitors), it inherently encompasses a strongly subjective element. Although this time-tested system, which has been evolving since the mid-eighteenth century, is being questioned and criticized for its deficiencies, it is still considered an integral part of the scholarly communication system, as no other procedure has been proposed to replace it. Therefore, to improve and strengthen the existing peer review process, it is important to understand its shortcomings and to continue the constructive deliberations of all participants within the scientific scholarly communication system . This chapter discusses the strengths, issues, and deficiencies of the peer review system, conventional closed models (single-blind and double-blind), and the new open peer review model and its variations that are being experimented with by some journals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors

The limitations to our understanding of peer review, reviewing peer review: a flawed system: with immense potential.

Evaluative criteria may also vary depending on the scope of the specific journal.

Krebs and Johnson ( 1937 ).

McClintock ( 1950 ).

Bombardier et al. ( 2000 ).

“Nature journals offer double-blind review” Nature announcement— http://www.nature.com/news/nature-journals-offer-double-blind-review-1.16931 .

Contains all versions of the manuscript, named reviewer reports, author responses, and (where relevant) editors’ comments (Moylan et al. 2014 ).

https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/peer-review-survey-2009-preliminary-findings .

Review guidelines, Frontiers in Neuroscience http://journal.frontiersin.org/journal/synaptic-neuroscience#review-guidelines .

Editorial policies - BioMed Central  http://www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/editorial-policies#peer+review .

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Interactive Public Peer Review  http://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html .

Copernicus Publications  http://publications.copernicus.org/services/public_peer_review.html .

Copernicus Publications - Interactive Public Peer Review  http://home.frontiersin.org/about/impact-and-tiering .

Biology Direct http://www.biologydirect.com/ .

F1000 Research  http://f1000research.com .

GigaScience  http://www.gigasciencejournal.com

Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine  http://www.jnrbm.com/ .

BMJOpen  http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ .

PeerJ  http://peerj.com/ .

ScienceOpen  https://www.scienceopen.com .

ArXiv  http://arxiv.org .

Retraction of articles from Springer journals. London: Springer, August 18, 2015 ( http://www.springer.com/gp/about-springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-journals/735218 ).

COPE statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes ( http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriate-manipulation-peer-review-processes ).

Hindawi concludes an in-depth investigation into peer review fraud, July 2015 ( http://www.hindawi.com/statement/ ).

.Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., ... & Valentine, A. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet , 351 (9103), 637–641. (RETRACTED:See The Lancet 375 (9713) p.445)

A practice used by researchers to increase the number of articles publishing multiple papers using very similar pieces of a single dataset. The drug industry also uses this tactic to increase publications with positive findings on their products.

Neuroscience Peer Reviewer Consortium  http://nprc.incf.org/ .

“About 80% of submitted manuscripts are rejected during this initial screening stage, usually within one week to 10 days.” http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/faq/ (accessed on October 18, 2016); “Nature has space to publish only 8% or so of the 200 papers submitted each week” http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/ (accessed on October 18, 2016).

Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors  http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf .

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals  http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf .

Alberts, B., Hanson, B., & Kelner, K. L. (2008). Reviewing peer review. Science, 321 (5885), 15.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ali, P. A., & Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open . doi: 10.1002/nop2.51 .

Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., Dougherty, M. C., Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2008). Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64 (2), 131–138.

Bjork, B.-C., Roos, A., & Lauri, M. (2009). Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 14 (1).

Google Scholar  

Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review. Science, 342 (6154).

Boldt, A. (2011). Extending ArXiv. org to achieve open peer review and publishing. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 42 (2), 238–242.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bombardier, C., Laine, L., Reicin, A., Shapiro, D., Burgos-Vargas, R., Davis, B., … & Kvien, T. K. (2000). Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. New England Journal of Medicine, 343 (21), 1520–1528

Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45 (1), 197–245.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2009). Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review: An investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Research Evaluation, 18 (4), 262–272.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2010). Reliability of reviewers’ ratings when using public peer review: A case study. Learned Publishing, 23 (2), 124–131.

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1 (3), 226–238.

Borsuk, R. M., Aarssen, L. W., Budden, A. E., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Tregenza, T., et al. (2009). To name or not to name: The effect of changing author gender on peer review. BioScience, 59 (11), 985–989.

Bosch, X., Pericas, J. M., Hernández, C., & Doti, P. (2013). Financial, nonfinancial and editors’ conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 43 (7), 660–667.

Brown, R. J. C. (2007). Double anonymity in peer review within the chemistry periodicals community. Learned Publishing, 20 (2), 131–137.

Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23 (1), 4–6.

Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263 (10), 1323–1329.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med, 4 (1), e40.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Campbell, P. (2006). Peer Review Trial and Debate. Nature .  http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

Campbell, P. (2008). Nature peer review trial and debate. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, 11

Campos-Arceiz, A., Primack, R. B., & Koh, L. P. (2015). Reviewer recommendations and editors’ decisions for a conservation journal: Is it just a crapshoot? And do Chinese authors get a fair shot? Biological Conservation, 186, 22–27.

Cantor, M., & Gero, S. (2015). The missing metric: Quantifying contributions of reviewers. Royal Society open science, 2 (2), 140540.

CDC. (2016). Measles: Cases and Outbreaks. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (8), 3157–3162.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chan, A. W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA, 291 (20), 2457–2465.

Charlton, B. G. (2004). Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review andCoI consultancy’. Medical Hypotheses, 63 (2), 181–186.

Cressey, D. (2014). Journals weigh up double-blind peer review. Nature news .

Dalton, R. (2001). Peers under pressure. Nature, 413 (6852), 102–104.

DeVries, D. R., Marschall, E. A., & Stein, R. A. (2009). Exploring the peer review process: What is it, does it work, and can it be improved? Fisheries, 34 (6), 270–279. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446-34.6.270

Emerson, G. B., Warme, W. J., Wolf, F. M., Heckman, J. D., Brand, R. A., & Leopold, S. S. (2010). Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170 (21), 1934–1939.

Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS ONE, 5 (4), e10271.

Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (42), 17028–17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109

Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515 (7528), 480.

Ford, E. (2015). Open peer review at four STEM journals: An observational overview. F1000Research, 4 .

Fountain, H. (2014). Science journal pulls 60 papers in peer-review fraud. Science, 3, 06.

Freda, M. C., Kearney, M. H., Baggs, J. G., Broome, M. E., & Dougherty, M. (2009). Peer reviewer training and editor support: Results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25 (2), 101–108.

Gillespie, G. W., Chubin, D. E., & Kurzon, G. M. (1985). Experience with NIH peer review: Researchers’ cynicism and desire for change. Science, Technology and Human Values, 10 (3), 44–54.

Greaves, S., Scott, J., Clarke, M., Miller, L., Hannay, T., Thomas, A., et al. (2006). Overview: Nature’s peer review trial. Nature , 10.

Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7 (10), e44118.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grivell, L. (2006). Through a glass darkly. EMBO Reports, 7 (6), 567–570.

Harrison, C. (2004). Peer review, politics and pluralism. Environmental Science & Policy, 7 (5), 357–368.

Hartog, C. S., Kohl, M., & Reinhart, K. (2011). A systematic review of third-generation hydroxyethyl starch (HES 130/0.4) in resuscitation: Safety not adequately addressed. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 112 (3), 635–645.

Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgment by the “gatekeepers” of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8 (1), 75–96.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2 (8), e124.

James, M. J., Cook-Johnson, R. J., & Cleland, L. G. (2007). Selective COX-2 inhibitors, eicosanoid synthesis and clinical outcomes: A case study of system failure. Lipids, 42 (9), 779–785.

Janssen, S. J., Bredenoord, A. L., Dhert, W., de Kleuver, M., Oner, F. C., & Verlaan, J.-J. (2015). Potential conflicts of interest of editorial board members from five leading spine journals. PLoS ONE, 10 (6), e0127362.

Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287 (21), 2784–2786.

Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2002). Peer-review: Let’s imitate the lawyers! Cortex, 38 (3), 406–407.

Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23 (3), 258–263.

Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. Bmj, 341, c6425.

Kilwein, J. H. (1999). Biases in medical literature. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 24 (6), 393–396.

Koonin, E. V., Landweber, L. F., & Lipman, D. J. (2013). Biology direct: Celebrating 7 years of open, published peer review. Biology direct, 8 (1), 1.

Kozlowski, L. T. (2016). Coping with the conflict-of-interest pandemic by listening to and doubting everyone, including yourself. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (2), 591–596.

Krebs, H. A., & Johnson, W. A. (1937). The role of citric acid in intermediate metabolism in animal tissues. Enzymologia, 4, 148–156.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Beyond open access: Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review , 5.

Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15 (1), 31–41.

Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422 (6929), 259–261.

Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 2–17.

Lippert, S., Callaham, M. L., & Lo, B. (2011). Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers. PLoS ONE, 6 (11), e26900.

Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. Jama , 280 (3), 246–247.

Lo, B., & Field, M. J. (Eds.). (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice . Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Loonen, M. P. J., Hage, J. J., & Kon, M. (2005). Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 116 (5), 1461–1472.

Luukkonen, T. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation , rvs001.

McClintock, B. (1950). The origin and behavior of mutable loci in maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36 (6), 344–355.

McCullough, J. (1989). First comprehensive survey of NSF applicants focuses on their concerns about proposal review. Science, Technology and Human Values, 14 (1), 78–88.

McIntyre, W. F., & Evans, G. (2014). The Vioxx ® legacy: Enduring lessons from the not so distant past. Cardiology Journal, 21 (2), 203–205.

Moylan, E. C., Harold, S., O’Neill, C., & Kowalczuk, M. K. (2014). Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, 15 (1), 1.

Mulligan, A., Hall, L., & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64 (1), 132–161.

Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? Medical Journal of Australia, 185 (3), 152.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Nature Editorial (2008). Working double-blind. Nature, 451, 605–606.

Nature Neuroscience Editorial. (2006). Women in neuroscience: A numbers game. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 853.

Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold, S. S. (2016). Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. JAMA, 316 (12), 1315–1316.

Olson, C. M., Rennie, D., Cook, D., Dickersin, K., Flanagin, A., Hogan, J. W., … & Pace, B. (2002). Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA, 287 (21), 2825–2828.

Palmer, A. R. (2000). Quasireplication and the contract of error: lessons from sex ratios, heritabilities and fluctuating asymmetry. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 441–480.

Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (02), 187–195.

PLOS MED Editors. (2008). Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLOS Med, 5 (9), e199.

Pulverer, B. (2010). Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature, 468 (7320), 29–31.

Pöschl, U., & Koop, T. (2008). Interactive open access publishing and collaborative peer review for improved scientific communication and quality assurance. Information Services & Use, 28 (2), 105–107.

Relman, A. S. (1985). Dealing with conflicts of interest. New England Journal of Medicine, 313 (12), 749–751.

Rennie, J., & Chief, I. N. (2002). Misleading math about the Earth. Scientific American, 286 (1), 61.

Resch, K. I., Ernst, E., & Garrow, J. (2000). A randomized controlled study of reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93 (4), 164–167.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2016). Ensuring the quality, fairness, and integrity of journal peer review: A possible role of editors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (1), 169–188.

Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., Hong, Y., Grant, A. O., Daniels, S. R., et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295 (14), 1675–1680.

Sandström, U. (2009, BRAZIL. JUL 14-17, 2009). Cognitive bias in peer review: A new approach. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of the International-Society-for-Scientometrics-and-Informetrics.

Shatz, D. (2004). Peer review: A critical inquiry . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Schneider, L. (2016, September 4). Beall-listed Frontiers empire strikes back. Retrieved from https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/beall-listed-frontiers-empire-strikes-back/

Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Carpenter, J., Godlee, F., & Smith, R. (2004). Effects of training on quality of peer review: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 328 (7441), 673.

Service, R. F. (2002). Scientific misconduct. Bell Labs fires star physicist found guilty of forging data. Science (New York, NY), 298 (5591), 30.

Shimp, C. P. (2004). Scientific peer review: A case study from local and global analyses. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 82 (1), 103–116.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Smith, R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review: A beginning that should lead to complete transparency. BMJ, 318, 4–5.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99 (4), 178–182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Souder, L. (2011). The ethics of scholarly peer review: A review of the literature. Learned Publishing, 24 (1), 55–72.

Spielmans, G. I., Biehn, T. L., & Sawrey, D. L. (2009). A case study of salami slicing: pooled analyses of duloxetine for depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 79 (2), 97–106.

Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20 (8), 357–358.

Squazzoni, F. (2010). Peering into peer review. Sociologica, 4 (3).

Squazzoni, F., & Gandelli, C. (2012). Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure. Journal of Informetrics, 6 (2), 265–275.

Steen, R. G. (2010). Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics , jme-2010.

Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 670–688.

Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61 (1), 9–12.

Travis, G. D. L., & Collins, H. M. (1991). New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16 (3), 322–341.

Tregenza, T. (2002). Gender bias in the refereeing process? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17 (8), 349–350.

Valkonen, L., & Brooks, J. (2011). Gender balance in Cortex acceptance rates. Cortex, 47 (7), 763–770.

van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S. J. W. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, c5729.

van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trial. British Medical Journal, 318 (7175), 23–27.

Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2014). Emerging trends in peer review—A survey. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9, 169.

Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176 (1), 47–51.

Walters, W. P., & Bajorath, J. (2015). On the evolving open peer review culture for chemical information science. F1000Research, 4 .

Ware, M. (2008). Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community-Results from an international study. Information Services and Use, 28 (2), 109–112.

Ware, M. (2011). Peer review: Recent experience and future directions. New Review of Information Networking , 16 (1), 23–53.

Webb, T. J., O’Hara, B., & Freckleton, R. P. (2008). Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Heredity, 77, 282–291.

Wellington, J., & Nixon, J. (2005). Shaping the field: The role of academic journal editors in the construction of education as a field of study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26 (5), 643–655.

Whittaker, R. J. (2008). Journal review and gender equality: A critical comment on Budden et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23 (9), 478–479.

Wiedermann, C. J. (2016). Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine: A narrative review. World Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 5 (3), 171.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, USA

Pali U. K. De Silva & Candace K. Vance

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pali U. K. De Silva .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

De Silva, P.U.K., K. Vance, C. (2017). Preserving the Quality of Scientific Research: Peer Review of Research Articles. In: Scientific Scholarly Communication. Fascinating Life Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2_6

Published : 20 January 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-50626-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-50627-2

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

What Is Scientific Peer Review?

In science, peer review is the critical evaluation of an academic's work by others in the same or similar field of study.

Typically performed to ensure the quality of work that's published is of a suitable standard, the peer-review process is widely regarded to be a good indicator that the study or paper contains reliable information.

While this is a sound rule of thumb, not all review processes are equally critical or deserving of the same level of trust .

Even though peer review greatly increases the validity of published research and reduces the chance that an incorrect or seriously flawed paper makes it to publication, a peer-reviewed study isn't necessarily the final word on a subject.

How is peer review performed?

Different publications will enforce their own peer-review policies, which in turn reflects their reputation within the academic community.

There is no single method, but when researchers submit a paper to a publication, these would be the traditional steps:

1. Initial review : The editor who commissions material for a particular journal or periodical receives submissions. Any that have glaring problems (such as not fitting the publication's scope) are rejected.

2. Peer review : Submissions that aren't rejected are passed to a handful of reviewers with relevant expertise, typically chosen by the editor, although the authors might make suggestions in some cases.

The most common types of peer review are:

Single-blind : the authors don't know who the reviewers are, allowing the reviewers to offer honest feedback;

Double-blind : neither the authors nor the reviewers are revealed, allowing not just for honest feedback, but for a reduction of potential bias against the author(s);

Open : the identities of the reviewers and authors are not concealed at all, allowing for a transparent discussion of the work.

The peer-review process can result in the rejection of a paper if it's found to be fundamentally flawed; it is accepted for publication with no changes; or, most likely, it will be returned to the authors with suggested changes.

4. Author revision : Work that is returned to the authors with suggested revisions is expected to be modified or justified. This can result in a discussion between the reviewers and the authors, which sees it eventually accepted and published, or rejected.

Depending on the process, as few as one in ten submissions (or even less) might be accepted for publication.

Once published, peer-reviewed academic work continues to be debated by others in the scientific community, and beyond, including the general public.

All Explainers are determined by fact checkers to be correct and relevant at the time of publishing. Text and images may be altered, removed, or added to as an editorial decision to keep information current.

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

What Is Peer Review and Why Is It Important?

It’s one of the major cornerstones of the academic process and critical to maintaining rigorous quality standards for research papers. Whichever side of the peer review process you’re on, we want to help you understand the steps involved.

This post is part of a series that provides practical information and resources for authors and editors.

Peer review – the evaluation of academic research by other experts in the same field – has been used by the scientific community as a method of ensuring novelty and quality of research for more than 300 years. It is a testament to the power of peer review that a scientific hypothesis or statement presented to the world is largely ignored by the scholarly community unless it is first published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is also safe to say that peer review is a critical element of the scholarly publication process and one of the major cornerstones of the academic process. It acts as a filter, ensuring that research is properly verified before being published. And it arguably improves the quality of the research, as the rigorous review by like-minded experts helps to refine or emphasise key points and correct inadvertent errors.

Ideally, this process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and in turn reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views.

If you are a researcher, you will come across peer review many times in your career. But not every part of the process might be clear to you yet. So, let’s have a look together!

Types of Peer Review

Peer review comes in many different forms. With single-blind peer review , the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, while double-blind peer review , both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Then, there is open peer review , a term which offers more than one interpretation nowadays.

Open peer review can simply mean that reviewer and author identities are revealed to each other. It can also mean that a journal makes the reviewers’ reports and author replies of published papers publicly available (anonymized or not). The “open” in open peer review can even be a call for participation, where fellow researchers are invited to proactively comment on a freely accessible pre-print article. The latter two options are not yet widely used, but the Open Science movement, which strives for more transparency in scientific publishing, has been giving them a strong push over the last years.

If you are unsure about what kind of peer review a specific journal conducts, check out its instructions for authors and/or their editorial policy on the journal’s home page.

Why Should I Even Review?

To answer that question, many reviewers would probably reply that it simply is their “academic duty” – a natural part of academia, an important mechanism to monitor the quality of published research in their field. This is of course why the peer-review system was developed in the first place – by academia rather than the publishers – but there are also benefits.

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Besides a general interest in the field, reviewing also helps researchers keep up-to-date with the latest developments. They get to know about new research before everyone else does. It might help with their own research and/or stimulate new ideas. On top of that, reviewing builds relationships with prestigious journals and journal editors.

Clearly, reviewing is also crucial for the development of a scientific career, especially in the early stages. Relatively new services like Publons and ORCID Reviewer Recognition can support reviewers in getting credit for their efforts and making their contributions more visible to the wider community.

The Fundamentals of Reviewing

You have received an invitation to review? Before agreeing to do so, there are three pertinent questions you should ask yourself:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. of financial or personal nature)?

If you feel like you cannot handle the review for whatever reason, it is okay to decline. If you can think of a colleague who would be well suited for the topic, even better – suggest them to the journal’s editorial office.

But let’s assume that you have accepted the request. Here are some general things to keep in mind:

Please be aware that reviewer reports provide advice for editors to assist them in reaching a decision on a submitted paper. The final decision concerning a manuscript does not lie with you, but ultimately with the editor. It’s your expert guidance that is being sought.

Reviewing also needs to be conducted confidentially . The article you have been asked to review, including supplementary material, must never be disclosed to a third party. In the traditional single- or double-blind peer review process, your own anonymity will also be strictly preserved. Therefore, you should not communicate directly with the authors.

When writing a review, it is important to keep the journal’s guidelines in mind and to work along the building blocks of a manuscript (typically: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references, tables, figures).

After initial receipt of the manuscript, you will be asked to supply your feedback within a specified period (usually 2-4 weeks). If at some point you notice that you are running out of time, get in touch with the editorial office as soon as you can and ask whether an extension is possible.

Some More Advice from a Journal Editor

• Be critical and constructive. An editor will find it easier to overturn very critical, unconstructive comments than to overturn favourable comments.
• Justify and specify all criticisms. Make specific references to the text of the paper (use line numbers!) or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
• Don’t repeat information from the paper , for example, the title and authors names, as this information already appears elsewhere in the review form.
• Check the aims and scope. This will help ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy and can be found on its home page.
• Give a clear recommendation . Do not put “I will leave the decision to the editor” in your reply, unless you are genuinely unsure of your recommendation.
• Number your comments. This makes it easy for authors to easily refer to them.
• Be careful not to identify yourself. Check, for example, the file name of your report if you submit it as a Word file.

Sticking to these rules will make the author’s life and that of the editors much easier!

Explore new perspectives on peer review in this collection of blog posts published during Peer Review Week 2021

[Title image by AndreyPopov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as a Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

Taking Libraries into the Future, Part 4: How IFLA Harnesses Social Media

10 summer reads for the intellectually curious, how to maximize your message through social media: a global masterclass from library professionals, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

What is peer review?

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

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 part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions opens in new tab/window of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process opens in new tab/window under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority 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 About Science conducted in 2009 opens in new tab/window and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly organization surveys. Furthermore, a  2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium opens in new tab/window , saw 82% of researchers agreeing that “without peer review there is no control in scientific communication.”

To learn more about peer review, visit Elsevier’s free e-learning platform  Researcher Academy opens in new tab/window and see our resources below.

The peer review process

Types of peer review.

Peer review comes in different flavours. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, and often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community. Before submitting or reviewing a paper, you must therefore check which type is employed by the journal so you are aware of the respective rules. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office 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 most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymized review include:

Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions, as the reviewers will not be influenced by potential criticism from the authors.

Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical 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, such as on author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history.

Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our  double-anonymized peer review guidelines .

Triple anonymized review

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

The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable.

As with double anonymized review, there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly identify the author(s) from their writing style, subject matter, citation patterns, or other methodologies.

Open review

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

Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page 

Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, either signed or anonymous 

Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article 

Publication of the paper after pre-checks and opening a discussion forum to the community who can then comment (named or anonymous) on the article 

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect ( example opens in new tab/window ).

Read more about the experiment

More transparent peer review

Transparency is the key to trust in peer review and as such there is an increasing call towards more  transparency around the peer review process . In an effort to promote transparency in the peer review process, many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the handling editor of the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance. Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers about the editor’s decision and their peers’ recommendations. 

Article transfer service: sharing reviewer comments

Elsevier authors may be invited to  transfer  their article submission from one journal to another for free if their initial submission was not successful. 

As a referee, your review report (including all comments to the author and editor) will be transferred to the destination journal, along with the manuscript. The main benefit is that reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals. 

Tools & resources

Elsevier researcher academy modules.

The certified peer reviewer course opens in new tab/window

Transparency in peer review opens in new tab/window

Reviewers’ Update articles

Peer review using today’s technology

Lifting the lid on publishing peer review reports: an interview with Bahar Mehmani and Flaminio Squazzoni

How face-to-face peer review can benefit authors and journals alike

Innovation in peer review: introducing “volunpeers”

Results masked review: peer review without publication bias

Interesting reads

"Is Peer Review in Crisis?" Perspectives in Publishing No 2, August 2004, by Adrian Mulligan opens in new tab/window

“The history of the peer-review process” Trends in Biotechnology, 2002, by Ray Spier opens in new tab/window

Publishing Research Consortium Peer review survey . 2015. Elsevier; 2015 

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Principles of scientific research conduct, peer review, and publication: an editor's perspective

Affiliation.

• 1 Center for Cardiovascular Genetics, Institute of Molecular Medicine and Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
• PMID: 35037003
• PMCID: PMC8756452
• DOI: 10.20517/jca.2021.37

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest The author declared that there are no conflict of interests.

The process of reaching the…

The process of reaching the truth is by gathering data through observation(s) and…

Similar articles

• Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors. Cuschieri S, Vassallo J. Cuschieri S, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2019 Feb;129:93-95. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.12.007. Epub 2018 Dec 19. Early Hum Dev. 2019. PMID: 30578111
• The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: a utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Bornmann L, et al. PLoS One. 2010 Jun 28;5(6):e11344. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011344. PLoS One. 2010. PMID: 20596540 Free PMC article.
• Science, politics, and peer review. An editor's dilemma. McCarty R. McCarty R. Am Psychol. 2002 Mar;57(3):198-201. Am Psychol. 2002. PMID: 11905119
• An editor's considerations in publishing industry-sponsored studies. Droller MJ. Droller MJ. Urol Oncol. 2015 Mar;33(3):149-54. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.11.023. Epub 2015 Jan 7. Urol Oncol. 2015. PMID: 25575712 Review.
• Getting your paper published: an editor's perspective. Hall PA. Hall PA. Ann Saudi Med. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):72-6. doi: 10.4103/0256-4947.75782. Ann Saudi Med. 2011. PMID: 21245603 Free PMC article. Review.
• Koshland DE Jr. Philosophy of science. The Cha-Cha-Cha theory of scientific discovery. Science 2007;317:761–2. - PubMed
• Watson JD, Crick FH. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953;171:737–8. - PubMed
• Avery OT, Macleod CM, Mccarty M. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. J Exp Med 1944;79:137–58. - PMC - PubMed
• Hershey AD, Chase M. Independent functions of viral protein and nucleic acid in growth of bacteriophage. J Gen Physiol 1952;36:39–56. - PMC - PubMed
• Yanai I, Lercher M. A hypothesis is a liability. Genome Biol 2020:21. - PMC - PubMed

Related information

Grants and funding.

• R01 HL132401/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States
• R01 HL151737/HL/NHLBI NIH HHS/United States

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication

Enhancing the quality and credibility of science.

Call for Research See the Editorial, Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads: Call for Research for the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication, published in JAMA and The BMJ . Information for Sponsors and Exhibitors

The 9th Congress was held in 2022 2022 Program

Our aim is to encourage research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication, to establish the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research.

Ninth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication in JAMA and BMJ

8th World Conference on Research Integrity, June 2-5, 2024, Athens, Greece

Drummond Rennie and Annette Flanagin, “Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses” in JAMA

Drummond Rennie, “Let’s make peer review scientific” in Nature

Peer Review Week, September 23-27, 2024 Innovation and Technology in Peer Review

Evidence-Based Medicine: An Oral History— Video Conference and Interviews of EBM Leaders

Meeting Information

9th Congress information available here The Program is available here

Sponsors and Exhibitors

Planning your strategic initiatives and budgets for the coming year ? Support the Peer Review Congress and enhance the quality and credibility of science. Opportunities for sponsorship and exhibiting for the 10th Congress are available now. Find out more here

About the Congress

What? The Congress provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of research into the quality and credibility of editorial and funding peer review, scientific and scholarly publication, research and reporting practices, identification and management of biases, transparency, reproducibility, access, publication and dissemination metrics, identification and management of threats to the integrity of science, and advances in information exchange.

We invite abstracts summarizing original, high-quality research on any aspect of peer review and publication and the conduct, reporting, assessment, and dissemination of scientific research. A broad range of study designs will be considered, with preference given to well-developed studies with more generalizable results (eg, prospective, multiyear trials and controlled studies from collaborative researchers, journals, publishers, funders, and information disseminators). Retrospective studies, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, bibliometric and other data analyses, surveys, modeling studies, and other types of studies will also be considered. Abstracts that report new research and findings will be given priority and we also encourage studies that build on previous related research.

See the 9th Program for previously presented research.

Who? Participants include editors and publishers of scientific peer-reviewed journals, researchers, funders, bibliometric and informatics experts, information innovators, librarians, journalists, policymakers, ethicists, scientific information disseminators, and anyone interested in the progress of the scientific information enterprise and the quality of scientific evidence.

The Congress embraces a wide range of disciplines, including biomedicine, health and life sciences, applied sciences, basic sciences, physical and chemical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, engineering, economics, and social sciences as well as new and emerging disciplines.

When? September 3-5, 2025

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement | Cookie Settings

© 2024 American Medical Association. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Understanding Science 101
• Misconceptions
• Scientific ideas lead to ongoing research.
• Answering one scientific question frequently leads to additional questions to be investigated.

Misconception:  Science is complete.

Correction:  Science is an ongoing process. There is much more yet to learn.  Read more about it.

Scientific ideas lead to ongoing research

Most typically in science, answering one question inspires deeper and more detailed questions for further research. Similarly, coming up with a fruitful idea to explain a previously anomalous observation frequently leads to new expectations and areas of research. So, in a sense, the more we know, the more we know what we don’t yet know. As our knowledge expands, so too does our awareness of what we don’t yet understand. For example, James Watson and Francis Crick’s proposal (based on evidence collected by Rosalind Franklin)that DNA takes the form of a double helix helped answer a burning question in biology about the chemical structure of DNA. And while it helped answer one question, it also generated new expectations (e.g., that DNA is copied via base pairing), raised many new questions (e.g., how does DNA store information?), and contributed to whole new fields of research (e.g., genetic engineering). Like this work on the structure of DNA, most scientific research generates new expectations, inspires new questions, and leads to new discoveries.

A SCIENCE PROTOTYPE: RUTHERFORD AND THE ATOM

Niels Bohr built upon Ernest Rutherford’s work to develop the model of the atom most commonly portrayed in textbooks: a nucleus orbited by electrons at different levels. Despite the new questions it raised (e.g., why do orbiting, negatively-charged electrons not spiral into the positively-charged nucleus?), this model was powerful and, with further modification, led to a wide range of accurate predictions and new discoveries, including predicting the outcome of chemical reactions, determining the composition of distant stars, and conceiving of the atomic bomb.

Rutherford’s story continues as we examine each item on the Science Checklist. To find out how this investigation measures up to the last item of the checklist, read on.

• Science in action
• Teaching resources

Learn more about how investigations of the structure of DNA inspired new questions and further research in  The structure of DNA: Cooperation and competition .

• Learn strategies for building lessons and activities around the Science Checklist: Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 Grades 13-16
• Get  graphics and pdfs of the Science Checklist  to use in your classroom.

Science is embedded in the scientific community

Participants in science behave scientifically

Subscribe to our newsletter

• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool

• Request Info
• Faculty & Staff
• Job Seekers
• Scholarships & Aid
• Student Life

Jacques Rinchard ( [email protected] )

• Daily Eagle

Environmental Science & Ecology Alum & Faculty Publish Peer-Reviewed Paper

Jarrod Ludwig (BS/MS’24) and Dr. Jacques Rinchard published a paper in Journal of Great Lakes Research.

This paper, based on Jarrod’s SURP project from his undergraduate studies in 2022, provides insights into the reproductive spawning strategy of the deepwater sculpin through histological analysis.

Ludwig, J., Weidel, B., O’Malley, B., Connerton, M., and Rinchard, J., 2024. Histological analysis of deepwater sculpin ovaries supports single spawning reproductive strategy. Journal of Great Lakes Research , 50, 102375.

Jarrod is currently working as an Aquatic Biologist at the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation in Dunkirk, NY.

• More Information

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

A scientist peer-reviewed an article that plagiarized his work. Then he saw it published elsewhere.

When Sam Payne reviewed a paper in March for Elsevier’s BioSystems , he didn’t expect to come across a figure he had created in his research. He quickly scrolled through the rest of the paper to find more figures, all copied from his work.

“It’s so blatant,” Payne, an associate professor of biology at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, posted on X . 

Although the journal rejected the paper at Payne’s recommendation, he worried the authors would try to publish elsewhere. 

“I had imagined they would just keep submitting it to new journals until it got accepted, because it was so brazenly plagiarized that they clearly didn’t care,” Payne told Retraction Watch.

Months later, Payne’s worry was justified. The paper , by researchers at First Moscow State Medical University, in Russia, appeared in Wiley’s Proteomics in May. 

While the figures are obviously copied from his work, Payne says the text of the article also has been lifted. 

“It seems like what happened is they just took sections of the manuscript and pushed it into an AI chatbot and said ‘summarize this for me,’ and then it came back with a reworded version,” Payne told us.

The corresponding author, Tatyana Degtyarevskaya, did not respond to our request for comment.

Payne’s posts on X about the whole experience received over 3 million views.  They spurred Wiley to “immediately” initiate an investigation in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, said a spokesperson for Wiley, who told us the publisher will retract the article.

“This calls for a much better peer review system. Like we have to do better. We have to check figures for plagiairism [sic] – as has been strongly advocated for by [Elisabeth Bik]. I know it will be hard. But this appears to be our reality,” Payne tweeted in the thread.

Payne said he is brainstorming ways journals could combat chatbot-aided plagiarism, when it’s not obvious the text is a direct match: “This will be happening a lot I think, unless [they] do some real serious effort to prevent it.”

Update, 8/16/24, 1800 UTC: The plagiarizing paper has now been retracted . Most of the authors say they had nothing to do with the paper:

The above article, published online on May 3, 2024 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Lucie Kalvodova; and Wiley-VCH GmbH. The retraction has been agreed due to a major unattributed overlap between the figures and figure legends of this article (Figures 2–7) and another article previously published elsewhere by a different group of authors [1]. Such publishing practice is against the journal’s policy and Wiley’s Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics. The co-authors, I. Popova, T. Degtyarevskaya, D. Babaskin, and A. Vokhmintsev, stated that they did not participate in the writing and submission of the article and gave no consent for publication. E. Savelyeva remained unresponsive.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a  tax-deductible contribution to support our work , follow us  on Twitter , like us  on Facebook , add us to your  RSS reader , or subscribe to our  daily digest . If you find a retraction that’s  not in our database , you can  let us know here . For comments or feedback, email us at  [email protected] .

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive marketing, updates, and other emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

Share this:

17 thoughts on “a scientist peer-reviewed an article that plagiarized his work. then he saw it published elsewhere.”.

A centralized database of peer reviews would help diminish the success of those who resubmit junk to multiple journals.

“one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”

Very good. Now I do dislike the new Hindawi which has become extremely slow and inefficient in the last months, but it does have its advantages that might sometimes surprise many:

Hindawi is perhaps the only publisher that has such a central peer review system for years. If someone gets a rejection from a Hindawi journal, then changes the title and text and try to resubmit his paper to another Hindawi journal, Hindawi will identify his manuscript as “previously rejected” and request the authors to first reply to the comments of previous reviewers and fully revise their paper, before even sending the manuscript to the editor let alone new peer reviewers.

Now that Hindawi is merged in Wiley, I guess perhaps they might have integrated this good policy into all 1600+200 journals of Wiley. But I don’t know yet; perhaps, RetractionWatch can investigate this, if interested (or if not already out there on the Internet).

ps. I know it has many many disadvantages! So don’t start counting them.

how about a list of predatory journals, that might be a good idea too

“They spurred Wiley to “immediately” initiate an investigation in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines, said a spokesperson for Wiley, who told us the publisher will retract the article.”

The paper is now showing as having been retracted.

A puzzling notice btw: “The co-authors, I. Popova, T. Degtyarevskaya, D. Babaskin, and A. Vokhmintsev, stated that they did not participate in the writing and submission of the article and gave no consent for publication.” At the same time, T. Degtyarevskaya was the corresponding author for this article. How can someone submit a manuscript if he does not agree with submission?

@Sybil, very easily: The fraudulent person can impersonate the corresponding author by creating a fake email address similar to the real one, and using it to submit the paper under the name of the corresponding author, without the corresponding author knowing about this. OR maybe the corresponding author is being dishonest here! ps. Nowadays, in many journals, the submitting author can differ from the corresponding author. Many journals allow someone else to submit the paper *on behalf* of the corresponding author. This includes all Wiley journals, all legacy Hindawi journals, and many other journals.

Unfortunately, as the reply from Kayfabe mentions (and assuming the authors are being honest), this is not an uncommon practice, especially (and understandably so) in disciplines where shared authorship is the rule. You will in fact find several examples on this website of people whose names have been used and abused in publications to which they did not, in fact, contribute. There are situations in which some unscrupulous authors actually desire to have their names included in papers in which they had no participation (plenty of examples of this can be found here too!), but for any reaearcher worth their salt the misuse of their name is a very concerning matter.

Some journals send the acknowledgement letter to the corresponding author only, so it is possible. Although, sometimes the authors who have perpetrated plagiarism, try to deny their role and put the blame on others. I think a full investigation on the authors’ previous works will be useful.

As I mentioned in a later comment, Tatyana’s work is all over the place in terms if subject matter – suspiciously so.

It is the time to black list those authors and institutions who have more than one retraction due to author misconduct. Enough with this tolerance and compliance

Not easy to sort. Computer based solutions to identify copied figures will be useful and needs to be free to use for peer reviewers.

Tatyana Degtyarevskaya’s on Research Gate is, while we’re at it, diverse. Quite diverse. Suspiciously diverse. While there is a chance that there might be more than one Tatyana Degtyarevskayas (hey, I’m pretty much “Jane Smith” equivalent in my language, so when you google my name, you’ll get translations, and articles ranging from dietetics, through linguistics and geology, to dentistry). Also, there is a chance someone specializing in, say, cell biology might be engaged with different strains of medical research. But proteomes, and forest vegetation, AND assessment of private tutors, *AND* digital literacy? C’mon!

Sorry about the errors – I was typing while walking, and a few sentences escaped me there.

It’s Sechenov Medical University, after all.

Perhaps we should have learned something from the case of Dmitry Bokov, but have we really? After all, even Bokov himself is back into publishing, after a short pause.

Why not compel all publishers to ‘filter’ all submissions prior to publication? For example, recent confirmation that the primary and all other authors are members/employees of an authentic educational/research entity? I’m sure there are some more verification that could also be applied.

Plagerism is painfully common in science. As a junior researcher I attended a conference featuring the dept head at a medical school. As the slides went by I noticed a Venn diagram that I had .published earlier. It was shown with no attribution. He presented it as his creation. I never quite got.over my disappointment. But I am older now and a lot wiser.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J R Soc Med
• v.99(4); 2006 Apr

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new `disease', female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited—not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times ). `But,' the news editor wanted to know, `was this paper peer reviewed?'. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not. Well, had it been? I had read it much more carefully than I read many papers and had asked the author, who happened to be a journalist, to revise the paper and produce more evidence. But this was not peer review, even though I was a peer of the author and had reviewed the paper. Or was it? (I told my friend that it had not been peer reviewed, but it was too late to pull the story from the front page.)

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW?

My point is that peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review). Peer review is thus like poetry, love, or justice. But it is something to do with a grant application or a paper being scrutinized by a third party—who is neither the author nor the person making a judgement on whether a grant should be given or a paper published. But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying `The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare.

What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche—which is not far from systems I have seen used—is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance. 1

That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet , who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish' and `reject'. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back `How do you know I haven't already done it?'

DOES PEER REVIEW `WORK' AND WHAT IS IT FOR?

But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'. 2 But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'.

One answer is that it is a method to select the best grant applications for funding and the best papers to publish in a journal. It is hard to test this aim because there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. Plus what is peer review to be tested against? Chance? Or a much simpler process? Stephen Lock when editor of the BMJ conducted a study in which he alone decided which of a consecutive series of papers submitted to the journal he would publish. He then let the papers go through the usual process. There was little difference between the papers he chose and those selected after the full process of peer review. 1 This small study suggests that perhaps you do not need an elaborate process. Maybe a lone editor, thoroughly familiar with what the journal wants and knowledgeable about research methods, would be enough. But it would be a bold journal that stepped aside from the sacred path of peer review.

Another answer to the question of what is peer review for is that it is to improve the quality of papers published or research proposals that are funded. The systematic review found little evidence to support this, but again such studies are hampered by the lack of an agreed definition of a good study or a good research proposal.

Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers. 3 , 4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.

THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

Slow and expensive

Many journals, even in the age of the internet, take more than a year to review and publish a paper. It is hard to get good data on the cost of peer review, particularly because reviewers are often not paid (the same, come to that, is true of many editors). Yet there is a substantial `opportunity cost', as economists call it, in that the time spent reviewing could be spent doing something more productive—like original research. I estimate that the average cost of peer review per paper for the BMJ (remembering that the journal rejected 60% without external review) was of the order of £100, whereas the cost of a paper that made it right though the system was closer to £1000.

The cost of peer review has become important because of the open access movement, which hopes to make research freely available to everybody. With the current publishing model peer review is usually `free' to authors, and publishers make their money by charging institutions to access the material. One open access model is that authors will pay for peer review and the cost of posting their article on a website. So those offering or proposing this system have had to come up with a figure—which is currently between $500-$2500 per article. Those promoting the open access system calculate that at the moment the academic community pays about $5000 for access to a peer reviewed paper. (The $5000 is obviously paying for much more than peer review: it includes other editorial costs, distribution costs—expensive with paper—and a big chunk of profit for the publisher.) So there may be substantial financial gains to be had by academics if the model for publishing science changes.

There is an obvious irony in people charging for a process that is not proved to be effective, but that is how much the scientific community values its faith in peer review.

Inconsistent

People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. I regularly received letters from authors who were upset that the BMJ rejected their paper and then published what they thought to be a much inferior paper on the same subject. Always they saw something underhand. They found it hard to accept that peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process. But it is probably unreasonable to expect it to be objective and consistent. If I ask people to rank painters like Titian, Tintoretto, Bellini, Carpaccio, and Veronese, I would never expect them to come up with the same order. A scientific study submitted to a medical journal may not be as complex a work as a Tintoretto altarpiece, but it is complex. Inevitably people will take different views on its strengths, weaknesses, and importance.

So, the evidence is that if reviewers are asked to give an opinion on whether or not a paper should be published they agree only slightly more than they would be expected to agree by chance. (I am conscious that this evidence conflicts with the study of Stephen Lock showing that he alone and the whole BMJ peer review process tended to reach the same decision on which papers should be published. The explanation may be that being the editor who had designed the BMJ process and appointed the editors and reviewers it was not surprising that they were fashioned in his image and made similar decisions.)

Sometimes the inconsistency can be laughable. Here is an example of two reviewers commenting on the same papers.

Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits' Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader'.

This—perhaps inevitable—inconsistency can make peer review something of a lottery. You submit a study to a journal. It enters a system that is effectively a black box, and then a more or less sensible answer comes out at the other end. The black box is like the roulette wheel, and the prizes and the losses can be big. For an academic, publication in a major journal like Nature or Cell is to win the jackpot.

The evidence on whether there is bias in peer review against certain sorts of authors is conflicting, but there is strong evidence of bias against women in the process of awarding grants. 5 The most famous piece of evidence on bias against authors comes from a study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci. 6 They took 12 studies that came from prestigious institutions that had already been published in psychology journals. They retyped the papers, made minor changes to the titles, abstracts, and introductions but changed the authors' names and institutions. They invented institutions with names like the Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential. The papers were then resubmitted to the journals that had first published them. In only three cases did the journals realize that they had already published the paper, and eight of the remaining nine were rejected—not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions.

This is known as the Mathew effect: `To those who have, shall be given; to those who have not shall be taken away even the little that they have'. I remember feeling the effect strongly when as a young editor I had to consider a paper submitted to the BMJ by Karl Popper. 7 I was unimpressed and thought we should reject the paper. But we could not. The power of the name was too strong. So we published, and time has shown we were right to do so. The paper argued that we should pay much more attention to error in medicine, about 20 years before many papers appeared arguing the same.

The editorial peer review process has been strongly biased against `negative studies', i.e. studies that find an intervention does not work. It is also clear that authors often do not even bother to write up such studies. This matters because it biases the information base of medicine. It is easy to see why journals would be biased against negative studies. Journalistic values come into play. Who wants to read that a new treatment does not work? That's boring.

We became very conscious of this bias at the BMJ; we always tried to concentrate not on the results of a study we were considering but on the question it was asking. If the question is important and the answer valid, then it must not matter whether the answer is positive or negative. I fear, however, that bias is not so easily abolished and persists.

The Lancet has tried to get round the problem by agreeing to consider the protocols (plans) for studies yet to be done. 8 If it thinks the protocol sound and if the protocol is followed, the Lancet will publish the final results regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Such a system also has the advantage of stopping resources being spent on poor studies. The main disadvantage is that it increases the sum of peer reviewing—because most protocols will need to be reviewed in order to get funding to perform the study.

Abuse of peer review

There are several ways to abuse the process of peer review. You can steal ideas and present them as your own, or produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor. These have all happened. Drummond Rennie tells the story of a paper he sent, when deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine , for review to Vijay Soman. 9 Having produced a critical review of the paper, Soman copied some of the paragraphs and submitted it to another journal, the American Journal of Medicine . This journal, by coincidence, sent it for review to the boss of the author of the plagiarized paper. She realized that she had been plagiarized and objected strongly. She threatened to denounce Soman but was advised against it. Eventually, however, Soman was discovered to have invented data and patients, and left the country. Rennie learnt a lesson that he never subsequently forgot but which medical authorities seem reluctant to accept: those who behave dishonestly in one way are likely to do so in other ways as well.

HOW TO IMPROVE PEER REVIEW?

The most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it. Many ideas have been advanced to do so, and an increasing number have been tested experimentally. The options include: standardizing procedures; opening up the process; blinding reviewers to the identity of authors; reviewing protocols; training reviewers; being more rigorous in selecting and deselecting reviewers; using electronic review; rewarding reviewers; providing detailed feedback to reviewers; using more checklists; or creating professional review agencies. It might be, however, that the best response would be to adopt a very quick and light form of peer review—and then let the broader world critique the paper or even perhaps rank it in the way that Amazon asks users to rank books and CDs.

I hope that it will not seem too indulgent if I describe the far from finished journey of the BMJ to try and improve peer review. We tried as we went to conduct experiments rather than simply introduce changes.

The most important step on the journey was realizing that peer review could be studied just like anything else. This was the idea of Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor, together with Drummond Rennie and John Bailar. At the time it was a radical idea, and still seems radical to some—rather like conducting experiments with God or love.

Blinding reviewers to the identity of authors

The next important step was hearing the results of a randomized trial that showed that blinding reviewers to the identity of authors improved the quality of reviews (as measured by a validated instrument). 10 This trial, which was conducted by Bob McNutt, A T Evans, and Bob and Suzanne Fletcher, was important not only for its results but because it provided an experimental design for investigating peer review. Studies where you intervene and experiment allow more confident conclusions than studies where you observe without intervening.

This trial was repeated on a larger scale by the BMJ and by a group in the USA who conducted the study in many different journals. 11 , 12 Neither study found that blinding reviewers improved the quality of reviews. These studies also showed that such blinding is difficult to achieve (because many studies include internal clues on authorship), and that reviewers could identify the authors in about a quarter to a third of cases. But even when the results were analysed by looking at only those cases where blinding was successful there was no evidence of improved quality of the review.

Opening up peer review

At this point we at the BMJ thought that we would change direction dramatically and begin to open up the process. We hoped that increasing the accountability would improve the quality of review. We began by conducting a randomized trial of open review (meaning that the authors but not readers knew the identity of the reviewers) against traditional review. 13 It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions. They were neither better nor worse. We went ahead and introduced the system routinely on ethical grounds: such important judgements should be open and acountable unless there were compelling reasons why they could not be—and there were not.

Our next step was to conduct a trial of our current open system against a system whereby every document associated with peer review, together with the names of everybody involved, was posted on the BMJ 's website when the paper was published. Once again this intervention had no effect on the quality of the opinion. We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage in opening up our peer review process, but that has not yet happened—partly because the results of the trial have not yet been published and partly because this step required various technical developments.

The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself. Now that I have left I am not sure if this system will be introduced.

Training reviewers

The BMJ also experimented with another possible way to improve peer review—by training reviewers. 4 It is perhaps extraordinary that there has been no formal training for such an important job. Reviewers learnt either by trial and error (without, it has to be said, very good feedback), or by working with an experienced reviewer (who might unfortunately be experienced but not very good).

Our randomized trial of training reviewers had three arms: one group got nothing; one group had a day's face-to-face training plus a CD-rom of the training; and the third group got just the CD-rom. The overall result was that training made little difference. 4 The groups that had training did show some evidence of improvement relative to those who had no training, but we did not think that the difference was big enough to be meaningful. We cannot conclude from this that longer or better training would not be helpful. A problem with our study was that most of the reviewers had been reviewing for a long time. `Old dogs cannot be taught new tricks', but the possibility remains that younger ones could.

TRUST IN SCIENCE AND PEER REVIEW

One difficult question is whether peer review should continue to operate on trust. Some have made small steps beyond into the world of audit. The Food and Drug Administration in the USA reserves the right to go and look at the records and raw data of those who produce studies that are used in applications for new drugs to receive licences. Sometimes it does so. Some journals, including the BMJ , make it a condition of submission that the editors can ask for the raw data behind a study. We did so once or twice, only to discover that reviewing raw data is difficult, expensive, and time consuming. I cannot see journals moving beyond trust in any major way unless the whole scientific enterprise moves in that direction.

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years. In his last year at the journal he retreated to a 15th century palazzo in Venice to write a book. The book will be published by RSM Press [ www.rsmpress.co.uk ], and this is the second in a series of extracts that will be published in the JRSM.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

The High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) in the MRO extended science phases (2009–2023)

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has been orbiting Mars since 2006 and has acquired >80,000 HiRISE images with sub-meter resolution, contributing to over 2000 peer-reviewed publications, and has provided the data needed to enable safe surface landings in key locations by several rovers or landers. This paper describes the changes to science planning, data processing, and analysis tools since the initial Primary Science Phase in 2006–2008. These changes affect the data used or requested by the community and how they should interpret the data. There have been a variety of complications to the dataset over the years, such as gaps in monitoring due to spacecraft and instrument issues and special events like the arrival of new landers or rovers on Mars or global dust storms. The HiRISE optics have performed well except for a period when temperature uniformity was perturbed, reducing the resolution of some images. The focal plane system now has 12 rather than 14 operational detectors. The first failure (2011) was a unit at the edge of the swath width, reducing image width by 10% rather than creating a gap. The recent (2023) failure was in the middle of the swath. An unusual problem with the analog-to-digital conversion of the signal (resulting in erroneous data) has worsened over time; mitigation steps so far have preserved full-resolution imaging over all functional detectors. Soon, full-resolution imaging will be narrowed to a subset of the detectors and there will be more 2 × 2 binned data. We describe lessons received for future very high-resolution orbital imaging. We continue to invite all interested people to suggest HiRISE targets on Mars via HiWish, and to explore the easy-to-use publicly available images.

Citation Information

Related Content

Colin dundas, ph.d., research geologist, kenneth edward herkenhoff, ph.d. (former employee).