Peer Review Process
(Redirected from Peer-Review)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
A Peer Review Process is a process were peers review a draft publication.
- Context:
- It can (typically) involve the participation of Peer Reviewers.
- It can (typically) be supported by a Peer Review System (such as a peer review service).
- It can range from being a Private Peer Review Process (such as anonymous peer review) to being an Open Peer Review Process.
- Example(s):
- the weak process followed by the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals. (Bohannon, 2013)
- KDD-2018 Peer Review Process, for KDD-2018.
- ICLR-2018 Peer Review Process, for ICLR-2018.
- …
- Counter-Example(s):
- a Paper Invitation Process.
- a Paper Referee Process (used in a Refereed Journal).
- See: Peer Reviewed Journal, STM Peer Reviewed Publication, Peer Reviewed Theory.
References
2013
- (Bohannon, 2013) ⇒ John Bohannon. (2013). “Who's Afraid of Peer Review?. ” In: Science, 342(6154). doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
- QUOTE: ... the acceptances and rejections of the paper provide the first global snapshot of peer review across the open-access scientific enterprise. One might have expected credible peer review at the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals. It describes itself as "a peer reviewed journal aiming to communicate high quality research articles, short communications, and reviews in the field of natural products with desired pharmacological activities."
... The goal was to create a credible but mundane scientific paper, one with such grave errors that a competent peer reviewer should easily identify it as flawed and unpublishable. ...
- QUOTE: ... the acceptances and rejections of the paper provide the first global snapshot of peer review across the open-access scientific enterprise. One might have expected credible peer review at the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals. It describes itself as "a peer reviewed journal aiming to communicate high quality research articles, short communications, and reviews in the field of natural products with desired pharmacological activities."
2011
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
- Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs. The following terms could be used to make these distinctions, but generally those in any given field just rely on the generic term. Even when qualifiers are applied, they may be used inconsistently. For example, Medical Peer review has been used to refer specifically to clinical peer review, to the peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses,[1][2] to scientific peer review of journal articles, and to the secondary rating of the clinical value of articles in peer-reviewed journals.[3] Moreover, “medical peer review” has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations,[4] but also to the process by which adverse actions involving clinical privileges or professional society membership may be pursued.[5] Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.
- Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
- ↑ Medschool.ucsf.edu
- ↑ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17–20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106.
- ↑ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142.
- ↑ (page 131)
- ↑ Ama-assn.org
2009
- http://www.researchiscool.com/howto.asp?article=Glossary
- QUOTE: Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).
Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals.
- QUOTE: Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (see anonymous peer review and open peer review).
2002
- (Rowland, 2002) ⇒ Fytton Rowland. (2002). “The Peer Review Process - A Report to the JISC Scholarly Communications Group.” In: Learned Publishing, 15(4).