-
Copyright © 2021 Phdassistance. All rights reserved 1
Editorial Peer Review Process for Research Manuscript at
Journals
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head,
Technical Operations, Phdassistance
[email protected]
In Brief
Prospect of peer review is to evaluate the
paper quality and suitability of publication
Single anonymous peer review is most
commonly used in medical science
journalsPeer review is essential for
upholding the integrity and credibility of a
scientific field
Keywords
PhD Manuscript Writing Services, PhD
Manuscript Peer Reviewing, Journal
Manuscript Peer Review, Journal
Manuscript Peer Review process, PhD
Manuscript Copyeditors, PhD Dissertation
Peer Reviewing Help, PhD Dissertation
Peer Reviewing Services, PhD Peer Review
Process, peer-reviewed academic
manuscript in PhD
I. INTRODUCTION
Peer Review is the independent assessment
of Research Paper by experts in the specific
field. The prospect of peer review is to
evaluate the paper quality and suitability a
publication of Peer Review Helps the author
determine the originality, validity, and
significance to help editors determine
whether a Paper is published in the certain
journal. Peer review is very important for
upholding the high impact factor journals
and it can be used for maintaining the
journal quality.
Figure: How Peer Review Works
II. TYPES OF PEER REVIEW
Single anonymous peer review
Double anonymous peer review
Open peer review
Post publication peer review
Single anonymous Peer Review
Single anonymous peer review is most
commonly used in medical science journals.
This kind of peer review is also termed as
single blind review because the reviewers
https://www.phdassistance.com/services/manuscript/manuscript-peer-reviewing/mailto:[email protected]://www.phdassistance.com/services/manuscript/manuscript-peer-reviewing/https://www.phdassistance.com/services/manuscript/https://www.phdassistance.com/services/manuscript/manuscript-peer-reviewing/
-
Copyright © 2021 Phdassistance. All rights reserved 2
know only the author names and they don’t
know who reviewed their Manuscript. The
reviewers' anonymity is designed to make it
easier for them to provide complete and
accurate information on an article without
fear of retaliation from the author.
Double anonymous Peer Review
This kind of review is also termed as double
blind review because the reviewer does not
know the author name and the author does
not know the reviewer of the manuscript. It
specifically used in humanities and some
social science journals. Most of reviewers
are prefer double anonymous review
because it avoids the risk of paper suffering
from unintended bias of reviewers who
know the nationality, gender and seniority of
a paper’s author.
Open Peer Review
Open review contains reviewer name and
article reports. Some open review journals
will also publish previous versions of paper,
allowing readers to see what changes were
made as a result of peer review.
Post Publication Peer Review
Post-publication Reviewing Paper helps to
get a broader variety of viewpoints, since
peer review doesn't stop when your paper is
written; peers can add recommendations in
the future that represent new developments.
III. STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO
REVIEWING A MANUSCRIPT
Overview of the review report format The
review report structures can varies from
different journals.
Formal Methodology
Occasionally, they will ask you to address
specific questions in your review via a
questionnaire. Or they might want you to
rate the manuscript on various attributes
using a scorecard. Often you can't see these
until you log in to submit your review. So
when you agree to the work, it's worth
checking for any journal-specific guidelines
and requirements. If there are formal
guidelines, let them direct the structure of
your review.
Criterion to Concentrate on Peer Review
The core emphasis of a peer reviewer is the
science. The determination of a peer
reviewer is typically not to fix grammatical
errors, spelling mistakes, or clunky
language, but it does not offend to point
them out to the authors. Every mistake or
inhibition to successful communication
caught early helps to improve the paper.
If the paper is systematically sound but is
missing an experiment or wishes to have
sections rewritten, it is appropriate to
consent with major revision. Provide
guidance to the authors and convey them
what they need to do. Be patient and be
organized to work with the authors on
further drafts until it is ready for publication.
IV. BENEFITS OF PEER REVIEW
The benefits of the peer review are
numerous. Peer review is essential for
upholding the integrity and credibility of a
scientific field. It acts as an operative
“filter,” spotting manuscripts of inadequate
quality and ultimately avoiding flawed
https://www.phdassistance.com/blog/how-to-perform-a-peer-review-give-a-step-by-step-procedure-for-new-researchers-in-reviewing-the-manuscript/https://www.phdassistance.com/services/manuscript/https://www.phdassistance.com/services/courses/journal-manuscript-writing/https://www.phdassistance.com/services/courses/journal-manuscript-writing/https://www.phdassistance.com/blog/mention-the-potential-benefits-of-peer-reviewing-a-manuscript-for-a-doctoral-student/
-
Copyright © 2021 Phdassistance. All rights reserved 3
science from creating it to print. Peer review
opens up important channels of
communication among the authors, editors,
and fellow reviewers, allowing all to be
heard in a joint contribution to their field.
Furthermore, it encourages authors to submit
only original and impactful work, improving
the quality and efficiency of the publication
process.
V. CONCLUSION
There are so many characteristics of being a
researcher that can go untaught (such as
writing grants or lesson plans), and
something as crucial to science as peer
review should not be counted among these
untaught subjects. By Reviewing
Manuscripts Submitted to different journals,
early-career researchers can become
proficient in spotting content that is reliable
and impactful and, just as importantly,
content that does not meet the criteria for
Submission to a Peer-Reviewed Journal.
REFERENCES
1. Burnham, John C. "The evolution of editorial
peer review." Jama 263, no. 10 (1990): 1323-
1329.
2. Lee, Carole J., Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang,
and Blaise Cronin. "Bias in peer review." Journal
of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 64, no. 1 (2013): 2-17.
3. Spier, Ray. "The history of the peer-review
process." TRENDS in Biotechnology 20, no. 8
(2002): 357-358.
4. Tennant, Jonathan P. "The state of the art in peer
review." FEMS Microbiology letters 365, no. 19
(2018): fny204.
5. Alberts, Bruce, Brooks Hanson, and Katrina L.
Kelner. "Reviewing peer review." (2008): 15-15.
https://www.phdassistance.com/https://www.phdassistance.com/
