Peer Review: Creative freedom or strict protocol compliance?
https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-24-23
Abstract
The article deals with the significance and peculiarities of reviewing scientific articles in Russian and foreign journals included in the List of journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation (НАС journals list) and indexed in Scopus. The author analyzes three forms of reviews– free form, form of table and detailed commentary and shows that the process of scientific research evaluation plays a decisive role in improving the quality of publications and development of scientific journals. Free form of reviews and reviews suggesting simple answers offer no benefits for reviewers, editors and authors as they provide neither clarity, nor the opportunity to receive detailed feedback. According to the author the form with detailed commentary which is traditionally used by the journals of international databases is the most efficient. It helps to facilitate the work of reviewer and editor, contributes to educating effect and enhances the quality of articles due to precise analysis algorithm. The author comes to the conclusion that well-formulated forms of reviews can be a powerful tool for development of scientific community. The article offers to continue the research in order to create unified forms of reviews and develop guidance principles to optimize the process of peer review, reduce the burden on editors and foster professional growth of reviewers and authors.
About the Author
Anna A. Gabets
MGIMO University, Moscow, Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Phil.), Associate Professor of English Department No. 5, Editor of Professional Discourse & Communication
References
1. Csiszar A. Peer review: troubled from the start. Nature. 2016;532:306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a
2. Chernysh M. F. Peer Reviewing in Contemporary Russian Science. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2022;4(1):18–39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.1.1
3. Manchikanti L., Kaye A. D., Boswell M., Hirsch J. A. Medical journal peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician. 2015;18(1):E1–E14. https://doi.org/10.36076/ppj/2015.18.E1
4. Dong M., Wang W., Liu X., Lei F., Luo Y. Status of peer review guidelines in international surgical journals: A cross-sectional survey. Learned Publishing. 2024;37(4):e1624. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1624
5. Aczel B., Szaszi B., Holcombe A. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021;6:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2
6. Cheah P. Y., Piasecki J. Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers? The Lancet. 2022;399(10335):1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02804-X
7. Al-Khatib A., Teixeira da Silva J. A. Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research. Biochemia Medica. 2019;29(2):020201. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.020201
8. Chong S. W. Improving peer-review by developing reviewers’ feedback literacy. Learned Publishing. 2021;34(3):461–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1378
9. Chong S. W., Mason S. Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: An autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2021;8:266. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00951-2
10. Weaver M. L., Sundland R., Adams A. M., Faria I., Feldman H. A., Gudmundsdottiret H. et al. The art of peer review: Guidelines to become a credible and constructive peer reviewer. Seminars in Vascular Surgery. 2022;35(4):470–478. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2022.10.002
11. Tikhonova E. V., Raitskaya L. K. Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review. Science Editor and Publisher. 2021;6(1):6–17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17
12. Miller E., Weightman M. J., Basu A., Amos A., Brakoulias V. An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences. Australasian Psychiatry. 2024;32(3):247–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241231460
13. Superchi C., Hren D., Blanco D., Rius R., Recchioni A., Boutron I., González J. A. Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. BMJ Open. 2020;10(6):e035604. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604
14. Garcia-Costa D., Squazzoni F., Mehmani B., Grimaldo F. Measuring the developmental function of peer review: a multi-dimensional, cross-disciplinary analysis of peer review reports from 740 academic journals. PeerJ. 2022;10:e13539. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.13539
15. Malički M., Mehmani B. Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17514. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17514
16. Tikhonova E. V. Constructive strategies for working with reviewers: From manuscript to successful publication. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2024;32(4):8–17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2024.4.622
17. Kelly J., Sadeghieh T., Adeli K. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. The Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2014;25(3):227–243. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4975196/pdf/ejifcc-25-227.pdf (accessed: 05.12.2024).
18. DeLisi L. E. Editorial: Where have all the reviewers gone?: Is the peer review concept in crisis? Psychiatry Research. 2022;310:114454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114454
19. Tumin D., Tobias J. D. The peer review process. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S52–S58. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18
20. Tikhonova E., Raitskaya L. Improving Submissions to Scholarly Journals via Peer Review. Journal of Language and Education. 2021;7(2):5–9. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2021.12686
21. Yu H., Liang Y., Xie Y. Can peer review accolade awards motivate reviewers? A large-scale quasi-natural experiment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024;11:1557. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04088-w
22. Tikhonova E. V. Effective strategies for writing research articles: Justifying the gap in existing knowledge in the subject area. Storage and Processing of Farm Products. 2024;32(1):8–16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36107/spfp.2024.1.561
23.
Review
For citations:
Gabets A.A. Peer Review: Creative freedom or strict protocol compliance? Science Editor and Publisher. 2024;9(2):168-178. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-24-23
Views:
482
Email this article 
