Dear colleagues, in your opinion/experiences, do benefits of the peer-review process exceed their costs to the authors? How?
Benefits of peer-review are well known, as far as the broader scientific community is concerned; do these benefits trickle-down to the individual authors.
In my personal oponion and experience, peer-reviews have a large number of benefits with a little cost to the authors. The cost generally comes in form of time, and sometime irresponsible reviews from non-serious reviewers. Benefits include critical feedback, positive reinforcement and credibility.
Thank you for your valuable perspectives, Bushra Shah , Joshua O. Ighalo .
The review of articles in his field of research is a process of critical reflection that open new avenues of research and can provide information on their own work.
Peer-review is needed at least a honest opinion from a peer is much more valuable than a plain outright rejection :)
From my experience, the benefits exceed cost of peer review hand down. I received great feedback.
tthe benefits of the peer review process do not exceed their costs for the authors, since most of the time referees do not gain from the reviews
I do not think review because the experts just check and observe the quality of work ..
Review processes of any kind are a good communication tool to develop scientific discourse communities; investing effort into such scientific communication is a win/win model, if journalistic fair-play is applied, i.e. clear, structured and ethical rules of selection procedure and process. It is always a matter of a good match, concerning the whole 'transaction'.
Do benefits of peer-review process exceed their costs to the authors?
Generally It is agreeable the benefits exceed the costs - because peer review is a necessary process put in place to ensure a quality article is published. However, there is subjectivity in which as to whether the authors need to pay for the review, what journal it is and quality of the reviewers identified etc. might sometimes causing the benefits might not exceed the cost incurred by the authors.
The peer-review process is mandatory in ensuring the quality of a paper and does not involve direct costs, only indirect cost of management process. The feedback is important and the costs are not exceed by this.
The benefits of peer-review process are clear. In other words, peer review plays an essential role in maintaining scientific quality. However, there are cases in which the aforementioned benefits do not trickle-down to the individual authors.
I talk about journals in which the only concern is to be 'likeable' and collecting money from the authors without a peer review of their papers. The oxymoron is that these journals assign papers to reviewers without taking into account their reviews. A really sad situation.
I do agree with our colleague Dr. Han Ping Fung , plus it is one of our duties as academicians regardless other factors.
Emad
Peer review is great if you are lucky and your peer reviewer is not working on the same problem and has similar ideas.
Those peer reviewers are potential competitors, then it becomes an ethical issue more than benefits of cost.
Good contributions @Joshua O. Ighalo, Aristidis Matsoukis and Han Ping Fung.
Yes, I believe when a manuscript undergo thorough peer review process, it tends to improve the quality of the research output.
Peer-reviewed articles reflect solid scholarship and advance the state of knowledge in a discipline. These articles present the best and most authoritative information that disciplines have to offer. Critique from scholars im your field enhance your analytical thinking and improve your research quality.
Impressive and important discussion with valuable challenging comments from our RG colleagues
Following
Some things in life are cost effective, and the peer review is a good example of such!
Most often, yes, the important thing, in the end, is to achieve the scientific goal of the tasks.
Thank you, colleagues, for participating in this discussion. Isam Issa Omran , Mohamad-Hani Temsah , Zainab J. Khudhair , Joshua O. Ighalo , Joshua O. Ighalo , Isam Issa Omran , Marwan Khaleel Yousif , Lamia Al-Naama
The reviewing of articles is not done in the interests of the author (primarily as a barrier for weak articles), but in the interests of the journal, and ultimately - the readers. Therefore, it is worth treating this as some rules that exist regardless of the desires of the authors. As for the “novelty” that reviewers can “borrow”, this is an exaggeration. Most often, they can borrow the desire to publish no matter what.
L'examen par des pairs d'un article ne peut être que rentable et d'un impact positif tant sur l'article et le journal
Gulzar Shah , I don't think the benefits trickle-down to the individual authors
Peer-review improves the quality of the articles. It not only helps the authors but also helps the reviewers to get some skills like critical thinking, getting new ideas, etc. Readers get state-of-the-art of the field, new direction as well ideas about applying new methods/techniques from other fields also.
For most of the time, the benefits of peer-review process exceed their costs to the authors.
I do not agree with "With peer-review, we can be sure of churning out quality science and not just anybody publishing anything because they have the money" due to many publishing by money and if look to predatory publishers, we can understand the issues
Dear colleagues thank you for your contribution to this discussion, Yousif Yakoub Hilal , Sohel Rana , Humphrey Danso , Benamar Belgherbi , Vadim S. Gorshkov , Yu-Da Lin
Peer review not only provides expert advice, but also strongly encourages authors to consider this advice and improve the document.
Peer review always improves the quality of the manuscript. However, it should not affect the cost of the publication for the authors.
Following this important discussion with valuable comments from our RG colleagues .
Excellent additions to this discussion, thank you colleagues, بان حميد فرحان , Nedhal Sadie , Sawsan M. Jabbar Al-Hasnawi , Sajda Taha Mahmood , Polina Lemenkova , Abderrahim Benkhaled
Yes indeed, the benefits exceed costs. Peer reviews are a service to self as well as to broader scientific community. Researchers performing peer reviews benefit as the process helps improve critical thinking, earn reputation as an expert in their field, and by building social capital with editorial team. Scientific community benefits by getting validation to research being published.
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude