I perfectly understand your sentiments. Many scholars only look to the material gains for accepting to review papers. As such they do not prioritize the review of papers though they have accepted to do it. It's so distressing. The truth is we must genuinely accept to review papers only if we have time to do it. Also, we must make it a priority if we want to help develop and enhance the scientific papers that are published for international readership.

Now, there are ways of using the record of papers reviewed to seek for funding and grant opportunities. Publons catalogues all the reviews we do for such purpose. Scholars must sign up to efficiently benefit from the reviews they undertake.

Journals must also ensure that they have enough dedicated scholars who are very much willing to review their papers in all the fields of research they advertise before starting operation.

This would help correct some of the anomalies with the peer reviewing process regarding the often inhumane long timespan for article review and the scarcity of reviewers.

Hello,

Prior to publication in a journal, peer review is seen as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly manuscript to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field and offers both direct and indirect benefits. The main direct benefit is that this hand on the job opportunity provides the targeted academics with practical sources by which they can use their knowledge to evaluate the works by others. As such, peer review is widely supported by academics because they believe it helps promote scientific communication. Another direct benefit of peer review is that it improves the quality of the published paper since it can dramatically enhance its rhetorical and stylistic excellence by reducing its flaws. On the other hand, peer review can also offer reviewers certain indirect benefits . For one thing, the experience would subconsciously sensitize the reviewers to the parameters which facilitate paper acceptance. Alternatively, the journals would give them a higher priority in publishing their own papers because sometimes the review process becomes too slow. All in all, peer review is quintessentially important because of its perceived objectivity and fairness.

Thank you, Nina, for your question. We always face difficulties, as editors, in finding peer-reviewers to do the job. We sometimes invite 8-10 reviewers, and we then have to contact more to end with 2-3 agreeing to review. I am talking about well-established journals that are ranked 5 or 8 in their fields. Peer-review, as you know, is conducted on a voluntary basis, as part of professional services and there are no real rewards to peer-reviewers. Most academics would be eager to review for top-cited journals like BMJ, NEJM, Academic Medicine, Gastroenterology, JAMA etc. if invited, as such invitations will add to their curriculum vitae. However, for an average journal, several factors will determine the response. JMIR started a token system to reward its peer reviewers. Other journals such as PLOS ONE moved to acknowledge the associate editors on the published article. The Publons initiative aims at the acknowledgement of peer-reviewers and editors for their services. These changes aim at encouraging more reviewers to do the job.

Peer-review is not without limitations. However, peer-review is useful in checking the scientific accuracy of manuscripts. The feedback from reviewers could help in improving the quality of the paper; it is also helpful in ensuring that the article matches the standards required and that there are no ethical conflicts and the study adds to what we already know in a particular area. Peer-review also helps the editors in deciding on submission and rejecting manuscripts that failed peer-review examination. However, not all articles submitted assigned for peer-review. Associate Editors decide whether to send a paper for peer-review or not. I enclose two documents for you, from BMJ, on peer-review to give you more detail. These are as follows:

- The state of evidence what we know and what we do not know about journal peer review

- The effectiveness of journal peer review

Peer review helps a budding researcher to grow into a seasoned researcher and helps the good and seasoned researchers to point out where they may have missed out something significant. Nevertheless, sometimes you may come across the situations where you may find criticism for the sake of criticism.

I have gained a lot from peer-review processes. I prefer it better when my work is criticized though with a civilized tone. Infant, I rank journal based on its comments after reviewed my manuscript. This helps me to improve especially when the critics are just.

On the other hand, the reviewer job is a difficult one. Considering the relevancy to the field of reviewer, tight schedule of reviewer, time frame given by Editor, benefit as a reviewer, journal standard, and so on.

I believe, there must be provision to encourage reviewers because even the big journals make money from publications. Other compensations should include certificate, free publication, invitation to conferences/workshop, and if the best journal could be selected, I think there should be best reviewer as well.

Thanks.

I perfectly understand your sentiments. Many scholars only look to the material gains for accepting to review papers. As such they do not prioritize the review of papers though they have accepted to do it. It's so distressing. The truth is we must genuinely accept to review papers only if we have time to do it. Also, we must make it a priority if we want to help develop and enhance the scientific papers that are published for international readership.

Now, there are ways of using the record of papers reviewed to seek for funding and grant opportunities. Publons catalogues all the reviews we do for such purpose. Scholars must sign up to efficiently benefit from the reviews they undertake.

Journals must also ensure that they have enough dedicated scholars who are very much willing to review their papers in all the fields of research they advertise before starting operation.

This would help correct some of the anomalies with the peer reviewing process regarding the often inhumane long timespan for article review and the scarcity of reviewers.

Agree with dr.Dickson.

A real peer-review helps in checking the violation of basic rules and in the improvement of the quality of the manuscript. Moreover, a reviewer may also learn about the recent trends in research.

Hi,

Peer reviewing is the only venue left to check the value of a scientific work, especially in the age of information overload, and endless number of different kinds of publications appearing online. This is true for every discipline, but especially so for disciplines that have relation to humans' well being. In medicine, for instance, if a medical researcher publishes results of his research , and recommends a new medicine or a treatment before his results were peer reviewed, the results could be harmful if he made a mistake that was not detected beforehand by a reviewer.

Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities.

Peer review is essential before publication

Generally speaking, peer review helps to improve the manuscript quality, the authors’ presentation and writing skill. It also helps the reviewers to learn new things and become a better reviewer and author.

Quality of paper is improved

• There is no doubt that the process is not perfect, but it does allow the reader to make some judgment about the relative quality and merit of the research.
• Peer reviewing allows a diversity of opinions to be brought to the table, theoretically removing any personal biases and pre-set ideas from the equation.
• The peer review process stops a lot of substandard and poor science from reaching publication. In addition, the reviewers are generally experts in their field, well acquainted with the latest developments. They can, therefore, reject duplicate research and plagiarized papers.
• Because editors can use the process to remove poor quality work, it saves a lot of wasted time and money, especially if the work is plagiarized. Without referees, a journal would have to employ a team of editors with expertise in every field, and this would make the cost of the production prohibitive.
• Traditionally, the journals that use peer review enjoy an excellent reputation and are trusted by experts in the field. This also helps them to attract the best researchers and scientists to submit papers.
• The reviewers are experts in their field, and peer reviewing often brings innovative research to their attention, where it may be buried amongst a flurry of papers.
• Peer reviewing is not only used for journals but for grant applications and University standard textbooks. This helps to ensure that money is diverted only towards viable research proposals. The peer review of textbooks ensures that students are taught correctly and are provided with excellent information.