For Wikipedia's Peer Review area, see WP:PR
is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers
). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field
. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia
, scholarly peer review
is often used to determine an academic paper
's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review
A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluates a grant
Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure. Henry Oldenburg
(1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.
A prototype professional peer-review process was recommended in the Ethics of the Physician
written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī
(854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.
Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review
Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.
Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,
engineering (e.g., software peer review
, technical peer review
), aviation, and even forest fire management.
Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy
. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.
Scholarly peer review
(also known as refereeing
) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly
work, research, or ideas
to the scrutiny of others who are experts
in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal
, conference proceedings
or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief
, the editorial board
or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.
Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals. However, peer review does not prevent publication of invalid research,
and there is little evidence that peer review improves the quality of published papers.
Scholarly peer review has been subject to a number of criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system have been suggested over the years. Attempts to reform the peer review process originate among others from the fields of metascience
. Reformers seek to increase the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and to provide it with a scientific foundation.
Alternatives to common peer review practices have been put to the test,
in particular open peer review
, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000
and BioMed Central
The European Union
has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy
In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion
Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report
on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.
The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.
Medical peer review
may be distinguished in four classifications:
- Clinical peer review is a procedure for assessing a patient's involvement with experiences of care. It is a piece of progressing proficient practice assessment and centered proficient practice assessment—significant supporters of supplier credentialing and privileging.
- Peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses.
- Scientific peer review of journal articles.
- A secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.
Additionally, "medical peer review
" has been used by the American Medical Association
to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.
The clinical network believes it to be the most ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.
, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.
- ^ Schimanski, Lesley A.; Alperin, Juan Pablo (2018). "The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and future". F1000Research. 7: 1605. doi:10.12688/f1000research.16493.1. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC 6325612. PMID 30647909.
- ^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Retrieved August 21, 2016.
- ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1: 0. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001. S2CID 186211404.
- ^ Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bibcode:2002heol.book.....B. ISBN 978-0-19-851053-6.
- ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
- ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Annals of Internal Medicine. 118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628. S2CID 45863865. Archived from the original on July 21, 2012.
- ^ Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Ratener P, Read WA, Morrison K; Weinstein; Ratener; Read; Morrison (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". American Journal of Public Health. 68 (4): 394–401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394. PMC 1653950. PMID 645987.
- ^ "AICPA Peer Review Program Manual". American Institute of CPAs.
- ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. July 12, 2007. Archived from the original on October 14, 2010.
- ^ "Martindale-Hubbell Attorney Reviews and Ratings". Martindale. Retrieved January 27, 2020.
- ^ "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process"(PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
- ^ Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool"(PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18 (2): 105–108. doi:10.2134/jae1989.0105. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
- ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (9): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2.
- ^ KupferschmidtAug. 17, Kai; 2018; Am, 9:15 (August 14, 2018). "Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science | AAAS. Retrieved August 11, 2019.
- ^ Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. PMID 24052283.
- ^ Rennie, Drummond (July 7, 2016). "Let's make peer review scientific". Nature News. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi:10.1038/535031a. PMID 27383970. S2CID 4408375.
- ^ Slavov, Nikolai (November 11, 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 4641509. PMID 26559758.
- ^ Couzin-FrankelSep. 19, Jennifer (September 18, 2018). "'Journalologists' use scientific methods to study academic publishing. Is their work improving science?". Science | AAAS. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
- ^ Cosgrove, Andrew; Cheifet, Barbara (November 27, 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC 6260718. PMID 30482224.
- ^ Patterson, Mark; Schekman, Randy (June 26, 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. 7: e36545. doi:10.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC 6019064. PMID 29944117.
- ^ Abdin, Ahmad Yaman; Nasim, Muhammad Jawad; Ney, Yannick; Jacob, Claus (March 2021). "The Pioneering Role of Sci in Post Publication Public Peer Review (P4R)". Publications. 9 (1): 13. doi:10.3390/publications9010013. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- ^ "Mutual Learning Programme - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission". ec.europa.eu.
- ^ "Social Peer to Peer – Online Casino Reviews". www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu.
- ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
- ^ "REVIEW BY PEERS" (PDF). A Guide for Professional, Clinical and Administrative Processes.
- ^ Deyo-Svendsen, Mark E.; Phillips, Michael R.; Albright, Jill K.; Schilling, Keith A.; Palmer, Karl B. (October–December 2016). "A Systematic Approach to Clinical Peer Review in a Critical Access Hospital". Quality Management in Healthcare. 25 (4): 213–218. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000113. ISSN 1063-8628. PMC 5054974. PMID 27749718.
- ^ Medschool.ucsf.edu Archived August 14, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educator. 23 (6): 17–20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106.
- ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142.
- ^ Snelson, Elizabeth A. (2010). Physician's Guide to Medical Staff Organization Bylaws (PDF). ama-assn.org. p. 131. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 6, 2011.
- ^ "Medical Peer Review". Ama-assn.org. Archived from the original on March 6, 2010.
- ^ "Peer review: What is it and why do we do it?". www.medicalnewstoday.com. March 29, 2019. Retrieved August 6, 2020.
- ^ NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (PDF). NASA. 2007. SP-610S.
Last edited on 7 April 2021, at 02:18
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0
unless otherwise noted.