Reviewer 1: “This manuscript is a timely and important contribution to the field, with clear methodology and compelling results. I recommend publication with only minor revisions.”
Reviewer 2: “This manuscript is deeply flawed. The authors’ conclusions are not supported by data, and key literature is ignored. Major revisions are required before it can be considered.”
These traces might be pulled from virtually any editorial determination letter on the earth of educational publishing, despatched from a journal to a researcher. One overview praises the work, whereas one other sees nothing however issues. For students, this type of contradiction is widespread. Reviewer 2, specifically, has turn out to be one thing of a meme: an nameless determine usually blamed for delays, rejections or cryptic critiques that appear to overlook the purpose.
However these disagreements are a part of the peer-review course of.
A world of memes – like this one shared on Reddit – has sprung up in regards to the ridiculous suggestions offered by a legendary Reviewer #2.
Reddit/r/medicalschool
As a medical nurse specialist, educator and scholar who opinions research in nursing and well being care and teaches others to take action critically as effectively, I’ve seen how peer overview shapes not simply what will get printed, however what finally influences apply.
Peer overview is the checkpoint the place scientific claims are validated earlier than they’re shared with the world. Researchers and students submit their findings to tutorial journals, which invite different students with comparable experience – these are the friends – to evaluate the work. Reviewers have a look at the best way the scholar designed the venture, the strategies they used and whether or not their conclusions arise.
The purpose of peer overview
This course of isn’t new. Variations of peer overview have been round for hundreds of years. However the fashionable type – nameless, structured and managed by journal editors – took maintain after World Battle II. In the present day, it’s central to how scientific publishing works, and nowhere extra so than well being, nursing and medication. Analysis that survives overview is extra prone to be trusted and acted upon by well being care practitioners and their sufferers.
Hundreds of thousands of analysis papers transfer by way of this course of yearly, and the quantity grows yearly. The sheer quantity signifies that peer overview isn’t simply high quality management, it’s turn out to be a bottleneck, a filter of kinds, and a sort of collective judgment about what counts as credible.
In medical fields, peer overview additionally has a protecting function. Earlier than a examine a few new remedy, process or care mannequin good points traction, it’s sometimes evaluated by others within the area. The purpose isn’t to punish the authors – it’s to sluggish issues down simply sufficient to critically consider the work, catch errors, query assumptions and lift pink flags. The reviewer’s work doesn’t at all times get credit score, nevertheless it usually adjustments what leads to print.
This doesn’t imply peer overview at all times works. Loads of papers get printed regardless of severe limitations. And a few of these flawed research do actual hurt. However even students who complain in regards to the system usually nonetheless imagine in it. In a single worldwide survey of medical researchers, a transparent majority mentioned they trusted peer-reviewed science, regardless of frustrations with how sluggish or inconsistent the method will be.
What truly occurs when a paper is reviewed?
Earlier than a manuscript lands within the fingers of reviewers, it begins with the researchers themselves. Scientists examine a query, collect and analyze their information and write up their findings, usually with a selected journal in thoughts that publishes new work of their self-discipline. As soon as they submit their paper to the journal, the editorial course of begins.
At this level, journal editors ship it out to 2 or three reviewers who’ve related experience. Reviewers learn for readability, accuracy, originality and usefulness. They provide feedback about what’s lacking, what must be defined extra fastidiously, and whether or not the findings appear legitimate. Generally the suggestions is collegial and useful. Generally it’s not.
Peer reviewers’ feedback may help researchers revise and strengthen their work.
AJ_Watt/E+ by way of Getty Photographs
Right here is the place Reviewer 2 enters the lore of educational life. That is the critic who appears particularly arduous to please, who misreads the argument, or calls for rewrites that will reshape the complete venture. However even these sorts of opinions serve a function. They present how work may be obtained extra broadly. And lots of instances they flag weaknesses the writer hadn’t seen.
Assessment is sluggish. Most reviewers aren’t paid, with practically 75% reporting they obtain no compensation or formal recognition for his or her efforts. They do that work on high of their common medical, instructing or analysis obligations. And never each editor has the time or capability to type by way of conflicting suggestions or to average tone. The result’s a course of that may really feel uneven, opaque, and, at instances, unfair.
It doesn’t at all times catch what it’s speculated to. Peer overview is healthier at catching sloppy pondering than it’s at detecting fraud. If information is fabricated or manipulated, a reviewer might not have the instruments, or the time, to determine that out. In recent times, a rising variety of printed papers have been retracted after issues about plagiarism or faked outcomes. That development has shaken confidence within the system and raised questions on what extra journals ought to be doing earlier than publication.
Imperfect however indispensable
Although the present peer-review system has its shortcomings, most researchers would argue that science is healthier off than it will be with out the extent of scrutiny peer overview gives. The problem now’s methods to make peer overview higher.
Some journals are experimenting with publishing reviewer feedback alongside articles. Different are attempting programs the place suggestions continues after publication. There are additionally proposals to make use of synthetic intelligence to assist flag inconsistencies or potential errors earlier than human reviewers even start.
These efforts are promising however nonetheless within the early phases of improvement and adoption. For many fields, peer overview stays a primary requirement for legitimacy, whereas some, reminiscent of regulation and high-energy physics, have alternate strategies of speaking their findings. Peer overview assures a reader {that a} journal article’s declare has been examined, scrutinized and revised.
Peer overview doesn’t assure reality. Nevertheless it does invite problem, foster transparency, supply reflection and power revision. That’s usually the place the true work of science begins.
Even when Reviewer 2 nonetheless has notes.
