Northwell/SOM_Getting Published: Peer Review

Peer review is important because it supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science and it benefits both editors and authors.

For editors, peer reviews from experts in the field are helpful for deciding whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. For authors, peer review is a valuable tool providing comments and suggestions with the intent of improving the finished product and therefore, producing a more polished and rigorous piece of work.

The peer review process protects the journal reputations by ensuring the work they publish is of a high standard. Articles published in peer-reviewed sources are considered to be more reliable and of a higher standard than articles published in non–peer reviewed sources. Most of the journals indexed in PubMed are peer reviewed, so it makes sense to select a peer-reviewed journal to have your publication indexed in PubMed. ACGME Common Program Requirements for Residency also recommends dissemination of scholarly learning (publication or presentation) in a peer-reviewed manner.

A journal website usually provides the information on whether the journal is peer-reviewed, typically in the Author Guidelines, Instructions for Authors or About this Journal sections. The easiest way to check if a journal is peer-reviewed is using PubsHub tool. Refer to our PubsHub Guide [link] for instructions.

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, an editor makes a preliminary check, known as a desk review, to decide if the manuscript should be sent for peer review. Then, it is sent to two or more experts from the same field who are qualified and able to review the work impartially.

In the of peer review process, the experts: 

• determine if a scholarly work falls within the journal's scope
•  determine if the research topic has been clearly formulated
•  determine if the methodology used for the author's results can be reproduced,
•  assess the novelty and originality of the research findings.
•  check the quality of writing and presentation.

The peer reviewers make their assessments on whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. They also provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Overview of the review process:

Source: Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.

So, your manuscript has been accepted for peer-review. The editors and the peer-reviewers have sent their comments and recommendations. What’s next

1. Read the comments and recommendations from the editor and reviewers carefully. Remember the goal of the peer review process is for you to improve your manuscript based on feedback from experts in the field.
2. If you have worked with a team of authors be sure to meet to discuss each of the comments and recommendations. Some comments and recommendations will be easy to address, while others may require more time and specificity.
3. Decide who among your group will compile the all too important “response to reviewers” document.

•    This document is submitted alongside your revised manuscript. It will, in detail, demonstrate how you have responded to each of the comments and questions the reviewers’ have provided in their review.  The reviewers’ will know exactly how each of the comments are addressed in your revised manuscript. You’ll want to respond to every point raised.
• This document serves a dialogue with your peer-reviewers. Some recommendations can be vague, or unclear, or just simply suggestions, which you can take or leave. Here is where you ask your questions for clarity and explain why you have potentially declined to take the reviewers’ suggestion.
• The document should be self-contained. When you make changes to the text or to figures, quote the changes directly in the response, whenever possible. If you need to refer to the specific line number where the changes were applied, specify whether you refer to the line numbers from the original or the revised manuscript.
• Use changes of typeface, color, and indenting to differentiate between the review itself, your responses to the review, and changes that you have made to the manuscript.
• In general, you should avoid giving the impression that you couldn't be bothered to carry out the additional experiments or analyses that the reviewer asks for. Even in cases in which you believe the reviewer has requested an analysis that you don’t find informative, report the results in your response, and then explain why you believe the results do not belong in your manuscript. In some cases, the reviewer may request content be moved and added, which may exceed the limitations for the manuscript, per the author’s guidelines. If, so indicate, that if the editor agrees to the changes, you will move forward with making them.

5. Remember to stay professional at all times in your response, even if you do not agree with the questions or recommendations being raised. It’s your job to make sure your research is clear to all readers, not just the experts (5).

Additional resources: Sample Response to Reviewers

Who can become a reviewer?
Anyone who is an expert in the article's research field can become a reviewer, you simply need enough specialist knowledge to evaluate a manuscript and provide constructive criticism to editors and authors. What's more, a good reviewer can be at any stage of their career. Working as a peer reviewer carries a level of prestige that can be used strengthen your credentials. 

As a reviewer, consider registering for a Publons account. Publons is a website owned by Clarivate that provides a free service for academics to track, verify, and showcase their peer review and editorial contributions for academic journals. Learn how Publons works for reveiwers at https://publons.com/benefits/reviewers/how.

Additional resources:
Value in Becoming a Peer-Reviewer Infographic
Becoming a Peer-Reviewer Learning Series – Elsevier