Reviewing the review

Peer review can be considered the skeleton upon which scientific research is built. Researchers engage in peer review constantly- we review, we are reviewed, and over time, we oversee the peer review activities of others. Given the central role that peer review plays in improving research integrity, not to mention in our professional lives, you’d imagine that peer review would receive a lot of research attention. Well, yes, and no. Peer review has been described as being like common sense, multi-factorial, of many parts. Attempts to unpick peer review to find out what makes it work best (or at least better), have proved frustrating. Somewhat like studying clouds, which appear so solid from a distance, peer review seems to dissolve under close scrutiny. One feature that has emerged is that younger peer reviewer age is reproducibly associated with higher-quality manuscript reviews. This is indeed good news. The peer review system badly needs more reviewers, as publication rates continue to rise, some say unsustainably. Younger peer reviewers, with relatively fewer responsibilities to juggle, would be really welcome. To compound these rising numbers, manuscripts are also becoming larger and increasingly multi-disciplinary. Investigator workloads are also rising, many would say just as unsustainably. Peer review often has to be done “as time allows”, alongside administration, teaching, and of course producing manuscripts and grant applications that ironically require peer r...
Source: BioMed Central Blog - Category: Journals (General) Authors: Tags: Uncategorized Source Type: blogs