Peer/Content Review: the Q&A

 What is peer/content review?

✒ Peer review is the refereeing work done by subject matter experts during the screening of research manuscripts. Also called content review. 👀

When is content review done?

Post-publication review (auditing) focuses on identification of flaws, significance of findings, impact of the research, and reproducibility of methods. 📊
 
Read my take on it here and here. 📢
It can lead to withdrawals or retractions of published papers. 👮


Today, I'll talk about pre-publication review, which analyses quality of research design, rigour of data collection and interpretation, and novelty of the research findings. 🔍

It usually ends with a recommendation to the editor, either to accept for publication, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.

Why should content review be performed?

It reduces the dissemination 🛂 of:
  • irrelevant findings, 
  • unwarranted claims, 
  • unacceptable interpretations, 
  • and personal views.
This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline. 
 
In Medicine ㊩, for instance, reporting guidelines have been adopted by the majority and most respected publications in the field. Therefore, content also needs to adhere to this specific way of being presented.
 
Image from vectorjuice on Freepik.

How is content review performed?

I favour the 4-step method:

  1. Broad read through 👀

    Focusing on the essential 3: title, keywords, and abstract. 
    Figure captions and tables are also perused.

  2. First detailed read 👓

    Pointing out major problems, contradictions, and omissions.
    Also identifying main strengths, and commenting on structure, quality, originality, readability, and revision suggestions (if any).

  3. Second detailed read 🔍

    Noting small issues, inconsistencies, structural/grammatical issues, and references.

  4. Write review report 📖

Highlighting areas for improvement, and providing summary and impact statements. 
 
 
AI can't really do this, as it requires critical thinking and originality. 
 
If you would like to know more about content review, and how I can increase your chances of publication, contact me.

I'll be posting daily here during Peer Review Week, this year from 25th to 29th September.










Comments

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

London Book Fair 2024: challenges for publishers

Image
I went to London with a purpose. It’s always good to meet collaborators and friends, but I had other goals with my visit. You see, it’s never good when the decisions that impact us are arrived at without our input. I wanted to bring awareness of my new peer review standards project to those in the publishing industry that can benefit from them. I'm comfortable researching and reviewing, even editing and managing the peer review process, but hearing editors and publishers speak of the big picture issue was an eye-opener. Change is ever present The publishing industry fancies itself as having evolved to explore the heritage and lived experience of minorities, by more frequently placing a spotlight on hidden and undervalued communities. Jonathan Karp, who spoke on the current model of employee ownership that underpins his role as CEO at Simon & Schuster , perfectly exemplified this—with profits now being reinvested in the company, there’s a new collaborative
Read more

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

London Book Fair 2024: OA and AI

Image
In a survey on the trends of academic publishing conducted in 2023, reflecting on the need to reformulate the current business model was front of mind. The need to optimize operational efficiencies may stem from the increased adoption of open access (OA) policies. For those not in the know, OA is a practice that enables research outputs to be distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, including the ability for copy or reuse, by applying an open license for copyright. The mandates  advocated by the Holdren Memo in the US, the Nelson Memo in the UK, and Plan S for the EU consolidated the view that unrestricted access to research publications is part of an integral right for transparency—we want to view the outcomes of taxpayer-funded research. However, many publishers follow a gold OA model and charge an article processing charge (APC), which is typically paid through institutional or grant funding. This means that readers don't pay, because t
Read more