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!

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

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more