Skip to main content
Top

Open Access 29-10-2024 | Commentary

The art of peer reviewing

Author: Roger W. Byard

Published in: Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology

Login to get access

Abstract

Peer review of submitted manuscripts refers to the process of sending out papers for evaluation by suitably qualified academics/practitioners working in the same area. After their assessments and recommendations have been addressed by submitting authors editors will decide on whether publication is warranted or not. Unfortunately, ‘peer review’ has achieved a high status in courts without a real understanding of the way that the system works. Given that it has been deemed: ‘a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works’, greater understanding of the nature of peer review is required. The following paper provides an overview of its strengths and weaknesses.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Home PD. Techniques for ensuring that your next paper is quite unsuitable for publication. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1988;22:48–50.PubMedPubMedCentral Home PD. Techniques for ensuring that your next paper is quite unsuitable for publication. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1988;22:48–50.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Byard RW. The forensic implications of predatory journals. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2016;12:391–3.CrossRefPubMed Byard RW. The forensic implications of predatory journals. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2016;12:391–3.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Byard RW, Vink R. Does listing of individual contributions in mega-authorship papers always follow best practice guidelines? Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2021;17:545–6.CrossRefPubMed Byard RW, Vink R. Does listing of individual contributions in mega-authorship papers always follow best practice guidelines? Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2021;17:545–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference da Silva JAT, Dobránszki J. Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:1457–72.CrossRef da Silva JAT, Dobránszki J. Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22:1457–72.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference https://scholargps.com/. (Accessed 8. October 2024). https://scholargps.com/. (Accessed 8. October 2024).
9.
go back to reference Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–6.CrossRefPubMed Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–6.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The art of peer reviewing
Author
Roger W. Byard
Publication date
29-10-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
Print ISSN: 1547-769X
Electronic ISSN: 1556-2891
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-024-00905-5