Peer review (referee system) is a tool used in the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted by authors in scientific journals and is the fundamental mechanism of quality control, feasibility, and credibility of scientific research. A growing number of journals use it for selection and improvement of manuscripts before their publication. Its implementation raises doubts regarding the evaluation process which is still far from being an objective, reliable, and reproducible method.
Surprising as it may seem, there is no clear consensus on the nature of the process, especially on its objectives. There are some evidence biases of various kinds; some well documented (bias towards positive bias, institutional or geographical origin of the authors).
The subjectivity of the process is one of the major disadvantages, which in my humble opinion they do detract this process. Other disadvantages are conflicts of interest, paradigms struggle, and the “alleged expertise” of reviewers.
It is a myth that the prestige of an expert based on their daily professional practice and many years of experience guarantees validity and quality at reviewing manuscripts; this believing is such an alarming matter.
In reality, having a solid experience of practice in health sciences is not in any way guarantee for proper methodological rigor and ethical performance as a reviewer.
Medicine is a magical blend of science and art materialized in practice; and inevitably exercised under the influence of socio-cultural, scientific and conceptual information, technical skills, human relations, and ethical values.
What would happen if a study proposed for publication goes beyond the paradigms of their reviewers?
What would happen if a proposed study solves problems, and expert referees have not noticed it for generations?
Facing this uncertain and bleak outlook, there are diverse rising voices towards the increasing transparency of the process, so that both author and reader can be placed in the lowest position of "vulnerability" as possible, to the imperfection of methods and decisions by the editorial process.
Without doubt, the system of peer review or peer review of manuscripts has advantages for all participants in the editorial and publication process; and lately it still rules the impression that this is the "least-worst and more sustainable" method of selection and improvement of scientific evidence.
However, this can and should be improved quickly for the sake of scientific work.
Dear Jose,
Thank you for starting this discussion. I agree with you that the transparency would be the solution. I found the situation growing pretty irrational in last two years. Very often from the comments I can conclude that so-called 'expert' who is entitled to criticize my work is lacking basic knowledge from the field. Even if I write rebuttal letter, Editor usually do nothing. Several times I felt so humiliated that I started publishing everything like a preprint and stop caring about the publishing at the time being. We are usually waiting for the initial answer, for example six months, or more, after which they inform us that they cannot accept the manuscript for publication. So you end up wasting a year, or two, or more, until your work lose the novelty. I have an impression that we are reading the research from the past, because the process of publishing became the opposite of what it should be. Not a vehicle for spreading the knowledge, but the process which is invalidating many peoples' work. Another problem is that the publishers are harvesting a large money from the scientists' work, and when something become lucrative business, the essence is gone...
Sincerely,
Milena
Milena Cukic I sincerely thank you. I was left alone with this concern for 4 long years... I also appreciate that you add the important bias of the commodification of science.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals