同行评议过程的评价

IF 1.4 4区 地球科学 Q3 PALEONTOLOGY
J. Riding
{"title":"同行评议过程的评价","authors":"J. Riding","doi":"10.1080/01916122.2022.2151052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The system of pre-publication editorial peer review (normally known simply as peer review or the referee system) has been used to critique, and hence improve, draft academic manuscripts, and documents such as book proposals, internal corporate reports, research grants and teaching materials for many years. In summary, the submitted documents are sent to one or more carefully selected experts (peers), who are asked to read and comment critically on them. In particular, but not exclusively, reviewers are asked to point out any unjustified claims, improper interpretations and extraneous results to the editors. The reviewer reports help the editors reach a decision as to whether the manuscript should be published, with or without revisions, or not at all. All researchers who have a track record in a certain discipline may be asked to undertake peer reviews. A peer review of a submitted scholarly manuscript is used in two ways. One by the author to improve their nascent work, and secondly by the editors to arrive at a decision (i.e. accept, revise or decline) on submitted manuscripts. There is a very large body of literature on all aspects of the peer review process (e.g. Kassirer and Campion 1994; Rowland 2002; Ware 2008; Ali and Watson 2016). Many of these papers are in journals on the life and medical sciences. This body of literature also includes entire textbooks such as Wager et al. (2002), Hames (2007) and Barczak and Griffin (2021). Recently there has been a tendency for studies on this topic to use experimental techniques, statistical analysis and survey data to analyse the effectiveness of the process (e.g. Fox et al. 2016; Wicherts 2016; Gaudino et al. 2021). In this short article I will review the peer review system, look at the criticisms of it, review how it works in practice, then go on discuss what makes a good review from the perspective of both authors and editors. The piece is principally aimed at helping early career researchers (ECRs) in palynology to understand this procedure, deal with peer reviews of their manuscripts, and guide them when they receive their first review requests.","PeriodicalId":54644,"journal":{"name":"Palynology","volume":"47 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Evaluation of the Process of Peer Review\",\"authors\":\"J. Riding\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01916122.2022.2151052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The system of pre-publication editorial peer review (normally known simply as peer review or the referee system) has been used to critique, and hence improve, draft academic manuscripts, and documents such as book proposals, internal corporate reports, research grants and teaching materials for many years. In summary, the submitted documents are sent to one or more carefully selected experts (peers), who are asked to read and comment critically on them. In particular, but not exclusively, reviewers are asked to point out any unjustified claims, improper interpretations and extraneous results to the editors. The reviewer reports help the editors reach a decision as to whether the manuscript should be published, with or without revisions, or not at all. All researchers who have a track record in a certain discipline may be asked to undertake peer reviews. A peer review of a submitted scholarly manuscript is used in two ways. One by the author to improve their nascent work, and secondly by the editors to arrive at a decision (i.e. accept, revise or decline) on submitted manuscripts. There is a very large body of literature on all aspects of the peer review process (e.g. Kassirer and Campion 1994; Rowland 2002; Ware 2008; Ali and Watson 2016). Many of these papers are in journals on the life and medical sciences. This body of literature also includes entire textbooks such as Wager et al. (2002), Hames (2007) and Barczak and Griffin (2021). Recently there has been a tendency for studies on this topic to use experimental techniques, statistical analysis and survey data to analyse the effectiveness of the process (e.g. Fox et al. 2016; Wicherts 2016; Gaudino et al. 2021). In this short article I will review the peer review system, look at the criticisms of it, review how it works in practice, then go on discuss what makes a good review from the perspective of both authors and editors. The piece is principally aimed at helping early career researchers (ECRs) in palynology to understand this procedure, deal with peer reviews of their manuscripts, and guide them when they receive their first review requests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Palynology\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Palynology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2022.2151052\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PALEONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palynology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01916122.2022.2151052","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PALEONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

出版前编辑同行评审制度(通常简称为同行评审或裁判制度)多年来一直被用于批评并改进学术手稿和文件,如图书提案、内部公司报告、研究拨款和教材。总之,提交的文件将发送给一名或多名精心挑选的专家(同行),请他们阅读并对其进行批判性评论。特别是,但不限于,评审员被要求向编辑指出任何不合理的说法、不当的解释和无关的结果。审稿人的报告有助于编辑决定是否应该出版手稿,有无修改,或者根本不出版。所有在某一学科有记录的研究人员都可能被要求进行同行评审。对提交的学术手稿进行同行评审有两种方法。一个是由作者改进他们刚刚起步的作品,第二个是由编辑对提交的手稿做出决定(即接受、修改或拒绝)。有大量关于同行评审过程各个方面的文献(例如,Kassirer和Campion,1994年;罗兰,2002年;Ware,2008年;Ali和Watson,2016年)。其中许多论文发表在生命科学和医学杂志上。这部分文献还包括Wager等人(2002年)、Hames(2007年)、Barczak和Griffin(2021年)等完整的教科书。最近,关于这一主题的研究倾向于使用实验技术、统计分析和调查数据来分析该过程的有效性(例如,Fox等人,2016;Wicherts 2016;Gaudino等人2021)。在这篇短文中,我将回顾同行评审制度,审视对它的批评,回顾它在实践中的运作方式,然后从作者和编辑的角度继续讨论什么是好的评审。这篇文章的主要目的是帮助孢粉学的早期职业研究人员理解这一过程,处理他们手稿的同行评审,并在他们收到第一次评审请求时为他们提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Evaluation of the Process of Peer Review
The system of pre-publication editorial peer review (normally known simply as peer review or the referee system) has been used to critique, and hence improve, draft academic manuscripts, and documents such as book proposals, internal corporate reports, research grants and teaching materials for many years. In summary, the submitted documents are sent to one or more carefully selected experts (peers), who are asked to read and comment critically on them. In particular, but not exclusively, reviewers are asked to point out any unjustified claims, improper interpretations and extraneous results to the editors. The reviewer reports help the editors reach a decision as to whether the manuscript should be published, with or without revisions, or not at all. All researchers who have a track record in a certain discipline may be asked to undertake peer reviews. A peer review of a submitted scholarly manuscript is used in two ways. One by the author to improve their nascent work, and secondly by the editors to arrive at a decision (i.e. accept, revise or decline) on submitted manuscripts. There is a very large body of literature on all aspects of the peer review process (e.g. Kassirer and Campion 1994; Rowland 2002; Ware 2008; Ali and Watson 2016). Many of these papers are in journals on the life and medical sciences. This body of literature also includes entire textbooks such as Wager et al. (2002), Hames (2007) and Barczak and Griffin (2021). Recently there has been a tendency for studies on this topic to use experimental techniques, statistical analysis and survey data to analyse the effectiveness of the process (e.g. Fox et al. 2016; Wicherts 2016; Gaudino et al. 2021). In this short article I will review the peer review system, look at the criticisms of it, review how it works in practice, then go on discuss what makes a good review from the perspective of both authors and editors. The piece is principally aimed at helping early career researchers (ECRs) in palynology to understand this procedure, deal with peer reviews of their manuscripts, and guide them when they receive their first review requests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Palynology
Palynology 地学-古生物学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
26.70%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Palynology is an international journal, and covers all aspects of the science. We accept papers on both pre-Quaternary and Quaternary palynology and palaeobotany. Contributions on novel uses of palynology, review articles, book reviews, taxonomic studies and papers on methodology are all actively encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信