How to survive and improve peer review?

Abstract

Publications are the key element in scientific communication and influence future science development. Peer review is at the heart of the procedures of not just medical journals but of all of the science. It is viewed as a vital stage by which grants are allocated, papers published, and faculties promoted. Peer review began in the early 1900s in response to the editor's need for expert advice to pick the best quality articles from various submissions. The editors of JRMS recently held a workshop to discuss ways to survive and improve peer review (see below for slides) in Isfahan university of medical sciences, and this paper summarizes the sessions.

The workshop was attended by editorial members of Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. This one-day workshop covered a wide range of topics including the peer review process and how to make it more pleasant, reviewers responsibility,and how to improve peer review . All sessions were followed by interactive discussions between the speakers and participants. In brief, the reviewer's responsibilities include help the editors to decide if the manuscript reaches the level of priority to be published in a given journal and improving the submitted manuscript with constructive comments.

Accordingly, the reviewer should protect the integrity of his or her speciality, the reputation of the scientific journal, and the ethical issues, as well as handling the author's manuscript with respect, and fairness.

Practically, if there is a conflict of interest, participating in review should be declined. After informing the editors about the willingness to review the fallowing issues should be validated (1) the originality, (2) methodological validity (3) significance of results, (4) the clarity of presentation, (5) if the results support the conclusions made (6) if the abstract properly reveal the full content of the manuscript, (7) the findings’ interest to the readership of the journal and, most importantly (8) the ethical issues of the study.

Another important question with peer review which was discussed in this workshop was” how to improve it”. The most interesting findings presented in response to this question include: homogenizing the process by using more checklists; opening up the process; reviewing protocols; training reviewers; being more meticulous in choosing reviewers; rewarding reviewers; giving feedback to reviewers.