Every academic peer review process may induce some sort of criticism, or on the other hand, some sort of praise, for the piece of work that is being reviewed. The accumulation of these comments often determines whether or not the article in question is, published or rejected, by leading journals. If the balance of the article is in the middle, referees are able to provide commentary advice which may aid the original author; so that the article can be improved upon. So, if all articles are prone to some sort of criticism, what could we mean by the title of this article?
This article intends to:
- Explain how the peer review process works.
- Highlight the importance of the peer review process.
- Access the critical impact, the outcomes of peer review processes has on informative decision making.
How does the Peer Review process work?
Firstly, the peer review process can be categorised by the type of the activity, or the field of profession in which the article occurs. As the name indicates, peer review is the process of self-regulation by qualified individuals within the relevant field. Depending on the field, sometimes the peer review process is anonymous, or sometimes it may be open. As mentioned earlier, often where it is open, referees are able to give commentary advice for overall article improvement. These commentators may be acknowledged by the original author/s in the acknowledgement section of the article.
Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. As already mentioned, peer review is used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication. 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 [1].
- Anonymous Peer Review: Also called blind review, is a system of prepublication peer review of scientific articles or papers for journals or academic conferences by reviewers who are known to the journal editor or conference organizer but whose names are not given to the article’s author. The reviewers do not know the author’s identity, as any identifying information is stripped from the document before review [1].
- Open Peer Review: Describes a scientific literature concept and process, central to which is the various transparency and disclosure of the identities of those reviewing scientific publications. The concept thus represents a departure from, and an alternative to, the incumbent anonymous peer review process, in which non-disclosure of these identities toward the public – and toward the authors of the work under review – is default practice. [1].
Importance of Peer Review
1. Allocation of Funding
Peer review is very important for the allocation of funding. Where research is deemed to be important for society, peer review is turned to. Peer review thus determines:
- Whether or not, new research projects should be funded.
- Or, whether or not, already funded projects should continue to be funded.
The quality of the research is assessed, and the importance of the research is assessed. In the UK specifically, peer review is used as a part of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Results are used to direct the distribution of public funds (£5 billion following the 2001 RAE) to each institute [2]. The higher the quality of research produced by the university, the higher the status of the university in terms of prestige and university rank.
2. Science into the Public Domain
The most important aspect of peer review, which we would like to highlight here, is that, peer review influences what science enters into the public domain. The journal in which an article is published, and the impact of the article, is often determined by, the prestige the journal has. The more prestigious the journal, the greater the likely impact of the publication.
One recent media example sheds light on such a case. An article with controversial contents was able to enter the public domain due to entrance via a well known journal. The article, written by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, was published in Remote Sensing. The paper purported to show that the Earth’s atmosphere is more efficient at releasing energy into space than is programmed into the computer models used to forecast climate change. The conclusion stated that there was no way of knowing that man-made gases are responsible for climate change [3].
Naturally, the article and its proposed claims were soon picked up by the media and the contents of the article were soon projected in not just the academic sphere, but the un-academic sphere as well – more specifically by, Fox News and Forbes Magazine [3].
Spencer maintained that the satellite observations showed that atmospheric temperatures were cooling rather than warming – until later where it was shown that the satellites in question suffered from “orbital drift”.
The reason why this paper managed to enter the public domain was that the editorial team, unintentionally, selected three reviewers who shared the same climate sceptic notions as that of the authors. The referees, and the authors, ignored the scientific arguments of many other opponents in order to get the article published [3]. This case highlights one of the many flaws of peer review [see 2, preserving the status quo – in this case, a group which excluded non-sceptics].
The editor-in-chief responsible, Professor Wolfgang Wagner, resigned from his post as he acknowledged that the journal was “fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal [4].”
Although the above example highlights a negative example, peer review is commonly regarded as the best available system for accessing the quality of science. As mentioned by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, it is not perfect. However, increased efforts are being made to improve the efficiency and transparency of the peer review process [2].
Informative Decision Making
As peer review processes allow information to enter the public domain. Peer review also subsequently, has the potential to change collective action, and influence, collective decision. The above example, which although showed a flaw in the peer review system (an enclosed academic elite), nevertheless, also showed how other academics were able to dig out the errors and flaws to the paper. This is very important, as large collective bodies often rely on the work of scientists to lead developmental change, aid in the proposal of new policies, and command responsive action to fight common problems of social concern. Such examples include the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPPC), or even much smaller bodies such as the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). All of which have the power to influence governmental policy and action. Thus, peer review inherently, has the potential to influence us. Whether or not, we read news or magazine articles (as in the example above); or, whether or not, governmental, or local council action, may force us to engage or participate in collective action – such as having to put your rubbish into the bin, or face a fine. Peer review is thus, a critical aspect of society. Which when you think about it, may have an influence, on almost everything that you may do.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
[2] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn182.pdf
[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper
