Warning: Undefined variable $yww in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 538
Warning: Undefined variable $yww in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 538
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\27257328
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 Med+J+Armed+Forces+India
2016 ; 72
(2
): 172-4
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Peer review for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and
possible remedies
#MMPMID27257328
Das AK
Med J Armed Forces India
2016[Apr]; 72
(2
): 172-4
PMID27257328
show ga
Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring quality control of scientific manuscripts
published in any journal. The traditional double blind peer review, although a
time-tested method, has come under increasing criticism in the face of emerging
trends in the review process with the primary concern being the delays in
completion of the review process. Other issues are the inability to detect
errors/fraud, lack of transparency, lack of reliability, potential for bias,
potential for unethical practices, lack of objectivity, inconsistencies amongst
reviewers, lack of recognition and motivation of reviewers. Alternative options
to classical peer review being propagated are: open review, immediate
self-publication using preprint servers, nonselective review focusing primarily
on the scientific content, and post-publication review. These alternative review
processes, however, may suffer from the inability to validate quality control. In
addition, anecdotal instances of peer review frauds are being reported more often
than earlier. Suggested means to ensure quality of peer review process
includes:(a) each journal to have its own database of reviewers, (b) verification
of email IDs of reviewers provided by authors along with details of their
institutions, (c) ensure credibility of reviewers before requesting for review,
(d) check for plagiarism at the editorial level, (e) editors to distinguish
between a good review from a possible biased/bad review, and (f) give recognition
for reviewers once in a year. To conclude, quickness of review and publication
should not dictate the scientific publication process at the cost of quality of
contents.
free
free
free
