Editorial: Peer Review: Evolution or Revolution?
Article Outline
The wisest mind has something yet to learn.
—George Santayana
The topic of peer review has been the subject of debate in scientific circles for decades, yet it is viewed by many as one of the most stable and consistent practices in the world of scholarly journals.1 Peer review is defined as the scrutiny of manuscripts by technical experts or “referees.” The referees’ assessments are used by journal editors to make decisions about which papers to accept for publication.2 This process is sometimes an annoyance to authors, and is often perceived as unnecessarily slowing the manuscript acceptance process. Yet, most editors rely heavily on the opinions of experts in the subject matter. They rely on referees to provide thorough, objective assessments and provide constructive suggestions that the author can use, whether or not the particular manuscript is accepted for publication in that particular journal. So what’s new and/or controversial about peer review?
As the pace of our professional lives has rapidly escalated, authors, peer reviewers and editors have been affected. Very busy reviewers often find the emails asking for one more review burdensome. Some editors believe that reviews, in general, are less critical than they used to be (although authors tend to disagree!) and often find it hard to obtain at least 2 critiques for each manuscript. So… many wonder if peer review is still a relevant exercise that is useful to authors, referees and editors and/or one that truly influences the quality of published papers.
Overall, the basic question asked by many is: does peer review actually result in higher quality papers and, if so, are certain methods better than others? Interestingly, conventional wisdom suggests that senior scholars are the best reviewers; however, studies of reviewers’ performances suggest this isn’t the case—in fact, younger reviewers from top institutions, and who are known to the editor, are factors associated with higher quality reviews.3 On the other hand, peer review has also been justified based on the premise that it is the “right thing to do”—that is, all of us are biased in some fashion or another and none of us (authors, referees, or editors) are right all of the time—hence the need for multiple perspectives.
In the past couple of years, 2 new developments have evolved that will likely have some impact on policies and practices of peer review of manuscripts for publication. These are the advent of Web-based manuscript management systems and open access. I think the Web-based system (like the one used by Nursing Outlook) works to benefit all 3 parties in the publication process. The system allows reviewers to tailor their profile specifically to topics in which they believe they are experts and to change their profile as their expertise evolves. The system also allows reviewers who are temporarily unable to review manuscripts to flag their file so that the flag pops up on a screen if the editor selects them. Reviewers are sent an e-mail when selected by the editor that they can accept or decline—all in a relatively short period of time. After their review is posted, similar to other Web-based review systems like that at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), they can then view the reviews of other referees, as well as pull up articles in Medline on similar topics. Most of us who serve as reviewers readily admit we learn the most reading others’ critiques—even if they sometimes point out areas we could strengthen ourselves.
What advantages does such a system have for an editor? Many—given the expertise list and the fact that so many manuscripts deal with multiple concepts, the database provides the editor with all classifications of expertise checked by each referee. This then allows the editor to choose reviewers who have checked multiple areas. Another advantage is the way the database tracks performance. Each referee’s “file” tells the editor how many times the referee accepted, declined, and ignored past requests and, most importantly, when the last request was accepted (so that reviewers do not receive multiple requests at one time). This system allows the editor to ignore referees who consistently refuse requests, as well as prevent over-use of those that frequently accept. One real strength of the system is the editor’s ability to rate each review on a scale of 1–100 (information that, over time, is very helpful in judging the quality of the reviews).
Another relatively recent phenomenon that is peripherally related to peer review and which has the potential to affect publishing practices is “open access.” Although the concept of open access had been discussed in the publishing world for the past several years yet it wasn’t until NIH mandated that manuscripts reporting findings from NIH-funded grants be placed on an open access site maintained by NIH no later than 6 months after the paper is published in a print journal that serious consideration was given the practice. This policy became effective May 2, 2005.4 The purpose of open access is to provide the widest possible dissemination of research as quickly as possible. A basic premise of open access is that researchers should make scientific literature available online for everyone to read and use at no charge, free of copyright and licensing restrictions. This relatively new practice has galvanized many authors, scientists and those in the publishing industry.
The initial impetus of this movement can be found in the government’s belief that if the taxpayers have already paid for the research that it should be available and easily accessible. In addition, it is likely that the occasional long delay from findings to publication, in today’s “very real-time” and “need to know” culture also played an important role.
There are currently 2009 journals in the open access database and 501 of these are searchable. Twelve journals are nursing journals, 4 of which are US journals.5 Open access refers to how articles are processed, paid for, provided to users, and protected. Historically, the end-users (institutions, readers) paid for the ability to access manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed and printed in journals. In open access journals (all of which are on-line), the author or his/her institution pays a fee once the paper has been accepted. The amount can be substantial, (ie, $500.00+), although some argue it is no more than the cost of reprints.6 Authors retain their own copyright and most of the articles are available in full text. Open access is not a fad likely to disappear and, over the next couple of years, it is likely that standards, policies, and applications across a variety of journals and publishing houses will evolve.7
What is unlikely to change, however, are the values and standards on which fair, impartial, and knowledgeable referees base their actions. These reviewers take the time to pose important questions and provide valuable suggestions for authors in order to make the manuscript clear, innovative, relevant, and useful to readers. As the technological and management systems in the publishing world continue to evolve, it is critical that editors, referees, and authors continue to dialog about the most efficient and productive way to translate knowledge in timely and accessible forms to those who need it—or someone else will.
References
- . Is peer review in crisis? . Perspectives in Publ . 2004;2:1–6
- . Peer review, authorship, ethics and conflict of interest . Image . 1997;29:163–167
- . The effectiveness of journal peer review . In: Godlee F , Jefferson T editor. Peer review in the health sciences . London: British Medical Journal Books; 2003;p. 62–75
- www.publicaccess.nih.gov. Accessed on February 6, 2006.
- www.DOAG.org. Accessed on January 29, 2006.
- . Article process changes, funding and open access publications . J Exp Clin Assis Reprod . 2005;2:1; Available at: www.jexpclinassistreprod.com/contenet/2/1/1
- . Perspectives on open access . Sci Editor . 2005;28:103–104
Dr. Marion E. Broome is a Professor and University Dean at the School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN
PII: S0029-6554(06)00059-5
doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2006.02.001
© 2006 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
