Changes

prepublication review by others in the same profession.   

prepublication review by others in the same profession.   

Normally, a journal editor receives an article submission and then sends it out to some readers (referees) who have some expertise regarding the article’s subject. These are usually selected from a pool of people who already published in that journal, and sometimes journals aks authors for suggestions for referees. The journal editor collects and anonymizes the answers of the referess and passes them to the authors, who may respond, change the article to clarify things, or retract the article. When enough referees approve the puplication the paper is published.

Normally, a journal editor receives an article submission and then sends it out to some readers (referees) who have some expertise regarding the article’s subject. These are usually selected from a pool of people who already published in that journal, and sometimes journals ask authors for suggestions for referees. In '''anonymous peer review''' the journal editor removes the names of reviewers from their comments before passing them to the authors.

There are numerous criteria which the scientific journals may ask the referees to check. One of the most important questions is if the referee believes that the topic of the article fits into the journal. If that would not be the case, the referee will usually suggest another journal to publish the article in.  The next important thing is that the article should be coherent. This means it should not contradict itself, and if parts (e.g. measurement results)  are ambigeous, this should be pointed out. The next criteria is obviously that the article should present sufficiently new material, and that the new material should be clearly distiguised from material cited. The next step is originality of the article. Even if new data are consistently presented, they may not fit into a given Journal. Last but not least, the style guidelines of the Journal should be followed quite exactly, and also a minimum standard in the language used must be adhered to. One should point out that Peer review is not very efficient against scientific misbehaviour or plagiarism.  

 

There are numerous criteria which the scientific journals may ask the referees to check. One of the most important questions is if the referee believes that the topic of the article fits into the journal. If that would not be the case, the referee will usually suggest another journal to publish the article in.  The next important thing is that the article should be coherent. This means it should not contradict itself, and if parts (e.g. measurement results)  are ambiguous, this should be pointed out. The next criteria is obviously that the article should present sufficiently new material, and that the new material should be clearly distinguished from material cited. The next step is originality of the article. Even if new data are consistently presented, they may not fit into a given Journal. Last but not least, the style guidelines of the Journal should be followed quite exactly, and also a minimum standard in the language used must be adhered to. One should point out that Peer review is not very efficient against scientific misbehavior or plagiarism.  

A controversial form of peer review is when physicians on the staff of a hospital pass judgment on a fellow physician, and recommend that he be excluded from the medical staff.  This has potential for abuse to eliminate competitors, which is known as [[sham peer review]].

A controversial form of peer review is when physicians on the staff of a hospital pass judgment on a fellow physician, and recommend that he be excluded from the medical staff.  This has potential for abuse to eliminate competitors, which is known as [[sham peer review]].