Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Peer Review in the Scientific Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrity of Scientific Research

Abstract

Peer review has become an essential component of the scientific publication process. It ensures that papers published in scientific journals provide adequately analyzed and presented data, novel and meaningful information, answers to the unknown, and accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. This process aims to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts before they are published. Researchers believe that peer review is the central pillar of trust and that without it there would be no control in scientific communication. However, this process is not perfect, and it is entwined with advantages and disadvantages, which makes it prone to bias. The credibility of the scientific community and the perception of the public to accept new results strongly depends on the authenticity of the articles that are published. It is our duty to ensure conformance with ethical requirements and the publication of veritable research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC 25(3):227–243

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rockwell S (2014) Ethics of peer review: a guide for manuscript reviewers case studies - guide for the discussion leader. Office, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wiley RANO Survey (2013) Principles of peer review. Wiley Author Services. https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/Principles_of_Peer_Review.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2021

  4. Elsevier, The Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) Survey (2016) How researchers really feel about peer review. Elsevier, Amsterdam. elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/205717/PeerReviewWeek2016_Infographic.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2021

  5. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287(21):2784–2786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Voight ML, Hoogenboom BJ (2012) Publishing your work in a journal: understanding the peer review process. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7(5):452–460

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH (2019) Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin proc 94(4):670–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ernst E, Kienbacher T (1991) Chauvinism. Nature 352:560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM (2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 295(14):1675–1680

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N (2003) A multilevel cross classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J Royal Stat Soc Series A (Statistics in Society) 166(3):279–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2012) Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(1):2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One 5(4):e10271

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Resnik DB, Elmore SA (2018) Conflict of interest in journal peer review. Toxicol Pathol 46(2):112–114

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lindsey D (1991) Precision in the manuscript review process: Hargens and Herting revisited. Scientometrics 22:313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Braben DW (2004) Pioneering research: a risk worth taking. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stanford PK (2012) Getting what we pay for: unconceived alternatives and historical changes in scientific inquiry. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Irvine, CA

    Google Scholar 

  17. The importance of titles (2021) https://springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/the-importance-of-titles/1410#:~:text=The title of your manuscript,people want to read further. Accessed 4 May 2021

  18. Venkatesh S, Maymone MB, Vashi NA (2018) Peer reviews: the dreaded rejection. Dermatol Online J 24(3):13030/qt9h60v8r6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Elston DM (2019) Common reasons why manuscripts are rejected: advice for young investigators. J Am Acad Dermatol 80(6):1523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chaitow S (2019) The life-cycle of your manuscript: from submission to publication. J Bodyw Mov Ther 23(4):683–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Coates R, Sturgeon B, Bohannan J, Pasini E (2002) Language and publication in “Cardiovascular Research” articles. Cardiovasc Res 53(2):279–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Patnayak R, Jena A (2014) Rejection of a manuscript: the other side of the story. Indian J Med Microbiol 32(3):350–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chernick V (2008) How to get your paper rejected. Ped Pulmonol 43(3):220–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pierson DJ (2004) The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Resp Care 49(10):1246–1252

    Google Scholar 

  25. Reuters T (2012) Global Publishing: changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers. https://bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ea40d7bf5b8995a511aba03008f89d7f/cram. Accessed 4 May 2021

  26. Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D, de Mazancourt C (2012) Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science 338(6110):1065–1069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brice J, Bligh J (2005) Author misconduct: not just the editors’ responsibility. Med Educ 39(1):83–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R (2010) Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas [Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications]. Neurologia 25(1):1–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Marcovitch H (2007) Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac Sanit 21(6):492–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263):1191–1194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Anonymous. (2010) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 1(1):42–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Groves T (2020) Scientific misconduct. https://authors.bmj.com/policies/scientific-misconduct/. Accessed 4 May 2021

  33. Wager E, Middleton P (2008) Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:MR000002

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wager E (2007) Ethical publishing: the innocent author’s guide to avoiding misconduct. Menop Int 13(3):98–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Henriette De La Garza & Neelam A. Vashi

Authors
  1. Henriette De La Garza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neelam A. Vashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neelam A. Vashi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Joel Faintuch

  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Salomão Faintuch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

De La Garza, H., Vashi, N.A. (2022). The Role of Peer Review in the Scientific Process. In: Faintuch, J., Faintuch, S. (eds) Integrity of Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_41

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_41

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99679-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99680-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation