What is Scientific Peer Review?

  Excerpted from:

Trisha Greenhalgh, "How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine" (1997, BMJ Publishing Group, p.35).

Most good scientific journals send papers out to a referee for comments on their scientific validity, originality, and importance before deciding whether to print them. This process is known as peer review, and much has been written about it. Following are common reasons why papers are rejected for publication by peer-reviewers:

the study did not examine an important scientific issue
the study was not original, i.e. someone else has already done the same or very similar study
the study did not actually test the authors' hypothesis
a different type of study should have been done
practical difficulties (e.g. in recruiting subjects) led the authors to compromise on the original study protocol
the sample size was too small
the study was uncontrolled or inadequately controlled
the statistical analysis was incorrect or inappropriate
the authors have drawn unjustified conclusions from their data
there is a considerable conflict of interest (e.g. one of the authors as a sponsor might benefit financially from the publication of the paper and insufficient safeguards were seen to be in place to guard against bias)
the paper is so badly written that it is incomprehensible

 

 

 

Excerpted from:

Instructions for Authors (Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 2002). Website: http://www.harcourthealth.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?a=ms&id=jpt0202501ia. Accessed on Feb 2002.
 

Authorship - 
All authors of papers submitted to JMPT must have an intellectual stake in the material presented for publication. All must be willing to answer for the content of the work. Authors should be willing to certify participation in the work, vouch for its validity, acknowledge reviewing and approving the final version of the paper, acknowledge that the work has not been previously published elsewhere, and be able to produce raw data if requested. 
 
Conflict of Interest - 
In recognition that it may at times be difficult to judge material from authors where proprietary interests are concerned, authors should be ready to answer requests from the editor regarding potential conflicts of interest. The editor makes the final determination concerning the extent of information released to the public. 
 
Review process -
All manuscripts are subject to blind (without author or institutional identification) critical review by 2 or more experts in the related field to assist the editor in determining appropriateness to JMPT objectives, originality, validity, importance of content, substantiation of conclusions, publishability, and possible need for improvement. Reviewers' comments will be returned with manuscript if rejected or if strong recommendations for improvement are made. 

 

Excerpted from:

Instructions for Authors (American Journal of Public Health). Website: http://www.ajph.org. Accessed on Feb 2002.

Authorship and contributorship -
Listing more than 6 authors requires justification. The Journal adheres to the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org). Upon acceptance, all authors must certify that they will take public responsibility for the content and provide any relevant data upon request. All authors must also certify that they have contributed substantially to conception and design or analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting or revision of content, and approval of the final version. Individual contributions of each author must be specified in a single brief statement. Authors also must confirm that the content has not been published elsewhere and does not overlap or duplicate their published work. Exceptions are made for abstracts and reports from scientific meetings. Copyright is transferred to the American Public Health Association upon acceptance.C
 
Cover letter - 
All authors must sign the letter, with 1 named correspondent (give postal and e-mail addresses, and telephone and fax numbers). Disclose all possible conflicts of interest (e.g., funding sources for consultancies or studies of products). A brief indication of the importance of the paper to the field of public health is helpful in gaining peer review. Authors are encouraged to suggest up to 6 knowledgeable reviewers, especially in novel fields (include postal and e-mail addresses and telephone and fax numbers). 
 
Acknowledgments - 
Prepare acknowledgments on a separate page. Upon acceptance, the first author will be asked to certify that all persons who have contributed substantially to the work but who do not fulfill authorship criteria have been listed, and that written permission for listing them has been obtained. Also required is disclosure of all financial and material support. If human participants are involved, approval by an institutional review board and their informed consent is required. The Journal adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association http://www.wma.net). 
 
Review, Editing, and Production -
We acknowledge initial and revised manuscripts upon receipt. About 60% of submissions are rejected upon initial screening by the editors, usually within 1 month of receipt. Peer review of the remainder requires about 3 months. The review process is double blind, with authors unaware of the identities of reviewers and reviewers unaware of the identities of authors until acceptance. The Journal will publish about 20% of initial submissions. Scheduling and production processes take up to 9 months.

[ Top of Page ] [ Home ]