Peer-Review

A peer review (English for review by peer, rare: cross certificate) is a method in science for the assessment of scientific work, especially of publications. This independent reviewers are (English peer for coequal, peer referee or referees ) are used in the same field as the authors to assess the quality.

Many scientific journals use a peer review to decide on the publication of submitted manuscripts. A post that has successfully passed the peer review is called a peer-reviewed article (english paper reviewed or refereed paper). Frequently in a peer-reviewed publications with a double-blind reports (English double- blind review ) is combined.

Proposals for the funding of research projects are another area in which a judgment by peer review is common.

Academic and scientific area

Definition

In the academic- scientific field are peer reviews of journal articles usual, in which one or more experts from the region corresponding to evaluate the proposed article for publication. Usually, the author sends his article as a manuscript to a person responsible (eg the editor) a magazine. If this holds for the article in principle capable he selects reviewers who leave after review of contents, a vote whether the article published in the submitted form sent back for revision to the author or should be definitively rejected. These experts also mentioned Reviewer or Referee may not come from the environment of the author during peer review. The independence of the appraiser from the object to be evaluated is the essential criterion of a peer review. Anonymity of the reviewer, however, is not required, but is often given. In a broader sense, a peer review is also used for other scientific publications. The appraiser performs its work mostly voluntary and unpaid. Stay both expert and peer-reviewed anonymously, so is spoken by double-blind opinion.

The anonymity serves to allow the appraiser voicing of criticism and pointing out shortcomings of publication, without having to fear the revenge of possibly hierarchically or in reputation and influence higher standing author. This is to ensure a thorough and unbiased review irrespective of the person of the author, and ultimately to be achieved a higher scientific level. The principle of anonymity of the appraiser is not without controversy. Chance of criticism is that it favors an exaggerated, destructive criticism. Established stars of a specific area of science could prevent the entry of competitors into their "niche" by unfounded - derogatory opinions, and would have, thanks to the anonymity it does not justify name. The anonymity of the reviewers promotes as the " territorial behavior " and an obstacle to an efficient quality competition.

However, the anonymity of the appraiser can also lead to judgments that were not created by lack of time or insufficient interest or knowledge conscientious enough. So can a bad article slip through the review process without the appraiser has to worry about his reputation in the scientific community. Authors are asked to avoid the text sections that might run counter to the anonymity (eg Selbstzitierungen in the first person ). In many cases, however, the authors are still guessing based on the references, the experimental possibilities, etc., especially if the concerned specialty from a small number of people will be researched. For this and other reasons, it is often dispensed with on the masking of the author's name.

The peer review is generally not a method to detect forged or made ​​fraudulently experiments. The appraiser must rely on the good will and the details of the author. He can only check the significance and timeliness of the question, the originality and validity of the approach and the plausibility of the results in context and draw attention to methodological errors.

The purpose of the assessment lies in an assessment of the quality of a submitted manuscript, which provides the editor of the journal evidence, whether it can be published as an article in it. Due to the high number of scientific journals and disciplines the assessment standards are often very different and depend on the readership and reputation of the journal. In general, the reviewers will evaluate the manuscript for obvious deficiencies or opportunities for improvement and only occasionally point out spelling errors or linguistic shortcomings. Very detailed report, including examination of the methods used are mainly required by articles dealing with topics in controversial or prestigious areas of expertise (eg stem cell research ) or of extremely high interest to a wide audience (eg in Nature or Science).

History

The history of the peer review dates back to the 17th century. Henry Oldenburg, editor of the London-based since 1655 in Philosophical Transactions, saw himself as a theologian not able to assess the quality of submitted essays on science topics themselves adequately. He delegated this task, therefore, to other scientists who were at the respective subject as competently. This method was later adopted by other scientific journals.

Dissemination

Worldwide there are about 21,000 magazines that use different types of peer review. Publish essays about 1 million annually. However, there are many scientific journals, which only work with editorial review.

Have peer -reviewed publications, notably because of the quality of the assessment test a better reputation than other forms of publicity, such as contributions to the Congress or journals without peer review. The number of such publications is considered a measure of the productivity and influence of authors on a field of knowledge.

Criticism

The peer -review process is criticized for two reasons:

A study ( Ioannidis 2005) on the peer- review model in medical publications has revealed that were detected in almost one-third of the studies between 1990 and 2003, which were published after peer review, the results were either exaggerated or later than contradictory. From the examined Articles 16 % received no consent, and another 16 % were not confirmed in subsequent studies. Ioannidis acknowledged that many factors such as different or better experimental arrangements to the repetitive tests, the inconsistencies might have favored. The process of the review is not standardized among the 10,000 medical journals worldwide. The results of the study could cast doubt on the reliability of the peer review. The usually external, and Unpaid experts assess the merits of the article, their comments and identity but kept confidential. Some editors advocated then, the evaluators to publicly name them and pay for other insurance, however, that the current peer - Preview- model preserves the publication of erroneous details and unsafe medical instructions.

Vincent Calcagno et al. found in a 2012 study published in Science that essays that initially rejected by a journal, then submitted to another journal and finally published, were cited tended more often than other papers in this journal. This may be because that deals with a controversial topic in the essay or a new method is applied, which is seen by a consultant critical, but is nevertheless for the professional world of interest.

Alternatives

2006 launched a scientist group from the UK, the online journal Philica, in which they tried to solve the problems of the traditional peer review. Unlike usual, all articles are published for the first, and the open peer review process does not start until after that. The experts are not chosen by the editors, but any researcher who wants that can criticize the article. The appraiser will remain anonymous. The report is appended to the end of each article, and give the reader so an assessment of the quality of work. The advantage of this system is that even unorthodox approaches to research are published, and not, as in the classical peer review, can be suppressed by established experts.

A similar project is Dynamic- peer review of the website Naboj. The difference Philica is that Naboj is not a complete online journal, but a forum for opinions of preprint articles in the page arXiv.org. The system is modeled on the assessment system of Amazon.com, and gives users the option of both the product and the individual reviews to evaluate. Therefore, the system offers the advantage (for a sufficiently large number of users and experts ) that the quality is assessed democratic.

In June 2006, Nature began with a test called parallel open peer review. Some items that have been submitted for a traditional review process, were also made ​​in parallel to the public, to be commented on. The experiment was evaluated and adjusted in December 2006 as unsuccessful.

Assessments of applications

In a broader sense peer review takes place not only in journal publications but also in the approval of measurement times at major research institutions and project financing.

Quality assurance in enterprises

Companies use a peer review for quality assurance. To run companies that are active in the field of auditing or consulting, so-called peer review by. Doing a project ( auditing or consulting project ) of a company is reviewed by an expert or a team of experts from another company in the same industry based on project documents and working papers. This give then in a report to review the quality of the project from. By choosing a foreign company as auditor independence of auditors and specimen is ensured to a large extent. Thus, the peer review is replaced by companies in quality assurance more weight than, say, an inter-office Review ( appraiser another office ) or Local Office Review ( reviewer of the same branch ).

For accountants and auditors for regular external quality control ( peer review ) is now a legal requirement. Currently, the assessment every three years must be carried out. Until 31 December 2005, a first-time external quality control had to be done. With the Seventh WPO amendment (professional supervision Reform Act ), the Expiration of Certificate of participation for an operation carried out quality control for WP / vBP practices that consider no listed companies, extended professional code of three to six years.

Rehabilitation facilities of the statutory pension insurance

The peer -review process is carried out as part of the quality assurance program of the statutory pension insurance. The objective is to ensure process quality in the space occupied by the statutory pension insurance rehabilitation facilities. Here, an occupied by scientific investigations between process quality during rehabilitation and the quality of medical discharge summaries is a basis. In concrete terms, the peer -review process that chief medical officers and Senior senior physicians with years of experience in the field of rehabilitation medicine and additional knowledge in the field of social medicine ( " peers " ) selected at random, anonymous medical discharge summaries of other rehabilitation facilities (usually 20-25 per pass ) assessed according to certain pre- defined criteria. Are assessed on six important for the rehabilitation process Part categories ( medical history, diagnosis, treatment goals and therapy, Clinical Epicrisis, Social Medical Epicrisis and Related measures and follow-up ) for the presence of defects ( no defects, minor deficiencies, significant deficiencies, serious deficiencies ) as well as having too points available (10 points = best, 0 = worst). From the summary reviews of the subregions results in the summary assessment of the entire rehabilitation process. The peer review process takes place both in the somatic indication areas ( gastroenterology, cardiology, neurology, oncology, orthopedics / rheumatology, pulmonology, dermatology ) as well as psychosomatic illnesses and addiction disorders and should be every 1 to 2 years on the initiative of the German Federal Pension Insurance be performed.