Peer review process – a necessary evil

Peer review – past, present, and future

By Joana Teixeira, Mariana Morgado, Mariana Laranjo

Peer review is a pilar for quality and integrity of scientific research. Was peer review always as we saw it now? No, the peer review process started in 1665 and it has evolved.

In 1665, the Royal Society of London created the first scientific journal, Philosophical Transactions [1, 2]. John Ziman considers that it was a “key event at the history of modern science” [2]. The journal includes four organization levels: registration, dissemination, peer review and archival [1]. The journal did not publish all material that it receives since editor Henry Oldenburg reviewed the papers and selected which ones will be published [2]. Reports mentioned that Oldenburg has the most relevant voice in this (to be) peer-review procedure [2]. Although a council was nominated by the Editor, he maintained the control over the process and stimulated places to discuss the work in conferences [3].

Peer review: the begging – (seeking) the help of peers

“A journal embraces such a large variety of matters that it is impossible for a single editor to oversee every issue especially in mediocre journal” – Denis Diderot

In 1752, the Royal Society of London established a “committee on papers” that reviewed all articles published, a process previously used by the Royal Society of Edinburgh (in 1731) that implements a select group of members to evaluate materials submitted to the society for publication [2, 4]. Interestingly, informal peer review was already applied in society where authors commented colleagues and friends for informal comments and criticism on the draft manuscript’s quality.

Peer review from the scientific community: as we know it now? Not yet!

In 1831, a Cambridge philosopher of Science, William Whewell proposed the following scheme to the Royal Society of London: reports written by a team of eminent scholars from all papers send to publication in the Philosophical Transactions [5, 6]. After that, the society launched a new journal - Proceedings of the Royal Society – including abstracts of papers presented at society and these reports. Editors of the scientific journal decided what it will be published based on personal approval (and by consultation with some trusted helpers) [6] This year marked the transition from a single editorial team to an independent expert in particular fields to review works, closer to what we consider peer review system [6, 7]. Peer-review as “a form of a review of competence by others in the same occupation” raised in 1968 [8]. With the increased diversity and specialization of thematic in journals, the Editor realized the need for opening the doors of peer review to scientific community aiming for an expert opinion. This process happened at different moments in scientific magazines. For example, Science did not use outside reviewers until 1940 [1, 8].

Peer review: where are we now? Walking to transparent review

Since 2009, the EMBO Journal (Nature Publishing Group) published a Peer Review File online with the decision letters from editors to authors. This polity comes out from a successful trial were almost 95% of authors agree to be involved. Interestingly, in another trial of voluntary open peer review system, the adhesion and quality of comments was lower [9]. Most probably, the success of publishing peer review files could rise from the minimal influence on conventional process, having still the benefit of enhanced transparency [10].

Nowadays, there are many efforts to reduce bias and increase transparency [9]. For instance, Nature uses a transparent peer review system since February 2020. Transparent peer review was different benefits, such as visibility and recognition for peer reviews, promoting research integrity and reproducibility, and preventing manipulation and fraudulent review [11, 12].

Peer review: what is the process?

The peer review process is comparative for all scientific journals, with mild expected variation between them [13].

While some authors describe the beginning of this process with the manuscript submission [14], the peer review process initiates as soon as a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript, describing the purpose, experimental design, results and conclusions of the aforementioned study [13]. Posteriorly, this manuscript is submitted onto a suitable journal, specialized in a relevant research field. This step is the pre-submission.

The Journal’s Editor(s) is/are then responsible for reviewing the paper, ensuring that studied subject is lined up accordingly and it is suited for the editorial platform.

Once the Journal’s Editor(s) agree that manuscript meets all the requirements, it is all set up to send the paper to recognized researchers in the subject matter, for a formal peer review. On average, each month, an Editor-in-Chief routinely reads and evaluates as many as 40 papers, with between 10% and 20% ultimately resulting in publication [14], while a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC)[15].

Once a reviewer is selected and manuscript is provided, the indication is to read it thoroughly, critically analyzing its validity, design quality, methodology and ethics. Additionally, the research’s relevance and novelty are assessed, as well as the identification of scientific or references error.

It is the role of peer reviewers to provide proper feedback and recommendations to the Editor, regarding the acceptance, rejection or improvement needs of the submitted manuscript.

Once, and if, the paper is accepted, combining the peer reviewers’ suggestions, the paper goes into production stage, where formatting occurs, and it is finally published.

How could a paper be (peer) reviewed?

Peer review process could be divided into five main types [16]. Before started a peer review process, you should reflect about possible conflicts of interest and if you are unsure, you should contact the Editor and allowed him/her to decide. Conflicts of interest could be personal or financial such as:

• You are a colleague or a former colleague of one of the paper’s authors;

• Your work directly competes or conflicts with the work in the paper;

• You have previously collaborated with or applied for funding with one of the authors;

• You might be affected financially if work was published.

Another point to be considered is that you should only accepted the peer review, if you have the necessary expertise to assess the paper.

After considering these aspects, it is the time for you to start your peer review process.

References

1. Moxham, N. and A. Fyfe, The Royal Society and the Prehistory of Peer Review, 1665–1965. The Historical Journal, 2017. 61(4): p. 863-889.

2. Keenan, A.M., et al., Technical Peer Review: Methods and Outcomes. J Nucl Med Technol, 2017. 45(4): p. 309-313.

3. Csiszar, A., Troubled from the start. 2016.

4. Caplan, A.L. and B.K. Redman, Peer Review, in Getting to Good. 2018. p. 371-384.

5. Kronick, D.A., Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism. 1990.

6. Spier, R., The history of the peer-review process.

7. H. Twaij, S.O., P. Hoffmeyer, Peer review., The bone and joint journal, 2014.

8. Drummond Rennie, M.A.F., RN, MA, Three Decades ofPeer Review Congresses. 2018.

9. Editorial, Reviewing all options, Nature Chemical Biology, 2018.

10. Editorial, Opening up peer review, Nature, 2007.

11. Wierzbinski-Cross, H., Peer Review. J Nurses Prof Dev, 2017. 33(2): p. 102-104.

12. Peer review and fraud. 2007.

13. Voight, M.L. and B.J. Hoogenboom, Publishing your work in a journal: understanding the peer review process. International journal of sports physical therapy, 2012. 7(5): p. 452.

14. Simons-Morton, B., et al., Demystifying peer review. 2012, Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.

15. Ware, M., Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium. 2008.

16. Park, J.-Y., Is open peer review, a growing trend in scholarly publishing, a double-edged sword? J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2020. 46(5): p. 299-300.