A systematic review of peer review for scientific manuscripts.

Bradley P Larson, Kevin C Chung
Author Information
  1. Bradley P Larson: Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Michigan Health System, 2130 Taubman Center, SPC 5340, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5340 USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of peer review has been expressed as a method to improve the quality of published work. However, there has been a lack of systematic reviews to date to highlight the essential themes of the peer-review process.
METHODS: We performed a search of the English language literature published prior to October 2011 using PubMed to identify articles regarding peer review. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed a priori. Data were extracted and then analyzed for the prevalence of peer-review themes contained within the literature.
RESULTS: Of the 941 articles found during our original literature search, 37 were selected for review. The majority were commentary/editorial articles. The themes in our search included the structure and process of the peer-review system, the criteria for papers, ethics, and the different forms of the peer-review process.
CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for submission will vary, but our systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of what reviewers expect from authors. Our systematic review also highlighted ethical considerations for both authors and reviewers during the peer-review process. Although the topic of peer review is expansive and its process may vary from journal to journal, the understanding of the themes outlined in this paper will help authors recognize how to write a more successful paper. Also, more research must be carried out to establish the efficacy of the different styles of peer review, and it would be presumptuous to draw conclusions until further research is established.

Keywords

References

  1. Endocrinology. 2010 Jan;151(1):1-3 [PMID: 20028876]
  2. EMBO Rep. 2006 Jun;7(6):567-70 [PMID: 16741499]
  3. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2784-6 [PMID: 12038911]
  4. J Nucl Med Technol. 2006 Jun;34(2):92-9 [PMID: 16751587]
  5. Transfusion. 2009 Nov;49(11):2265-8 [PMID: 19761546]
  6. BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c5729 [PMID: 21081600]
  7. Epilepsia. 2004 Aug;45(8):889-94 [PMID: 15270753]
  8. Cardiovasc Ther. 2008 Summer;26(2):89-90 [PMID: 18485131]
  9. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Oct;82(10):790-802 [PMID: 14508411]
  10. Radiology. 1998 Jul;208(1):9-16 [PMID: 9646786]
  11. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jan 31;8:3 [PMID: 18237378]
  12. J Cutan Pathol. 2011 Jul;38(7):540-1 [PMID: 21615766]
  13. J Med Ethics. 2009 Jun;35(6):348-53 [PMID: 19482976]
  14. J Hand Surg Am. 2006 Sep;31(7):1051-5 [PMID: 16945702]
  15. Int J Hematol. 2006 Apr;83(3):191-2 [PMID: 16720544]
  16. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Dec;64(6 Suppl):S23-5 [PMID: 17113850]
  17. Obstet Gynecol. 1995 May;85(5 Pt 1):781-2 [PMID: 7724113]
  18. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):300-2 [PMID: 9676691]
  19. Int J Urol. 2010 Sep;17(9):754 [PMID: 20727046]
  20. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jan;23(1):4-6 [PMID: 17963996]
  21. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2786-90 [PMID: 12038912]
  22. PLoS Med. 2008 Sep 30;5(9):e199 [PMID: 18828670]
  23. Neurosurgery. 2010 Nov;67(5):1165-6 [PMID: 20948397]
  24. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2790-3 [PMID: 12038913]
  25. Breast Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 20;12 Suppl 4:S13 [PMID: 21172075]
  26. Res Nurs Health. 2008 Oct;31(5):399-401 [PMID: 18613067]
  27. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1998 Sep-Oct;19(5):415-8 [PMID: 9782859]
  28. J Vasc Surg. 2007 Aug;46(2):391-3 [PMID: 17664118]
  29. BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c6425 [PMID: 21081603]
  30. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Aug;33(4):273-5 [PMID: 20645419]
  31. Nature. 2008 Feb 7;451(7179):605-6 [PMID: 18256621]
  32. Int J Cardiol. 2009 Jan 9;131(2):149-50 [PMID: 19046787]
  33. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1321-2 [PMID: 2406469]
  34. Waste Manag. 2010 Jan;30(1):1-3 [PMID: 19897351]
  35. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2006 Feb;13(1):1-2 [PMID: 16441386]
  36. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):445-7 [PMID: 20194952]
  37. Kidney Int. 2002 Sep;62(3):1081-7 [PMID: 12164894]
  38. BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c6424 [PMID: 21081602]
  39. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Jul;23(7):351-3; author reply 353-4 [PMID: 18450323]
  40. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):149-51 [PMID: 8015129]
  41. J Adv Nurs. 2008 Oct;64(2):113 [PMID: 18990091]
  42. Cancer. 2010 Sep 1;116(17):3986-7 [PMID: 20564144]
  43. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 Dec;33(13):3023-6 [PMID: 18650804]
  44. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Nov;63(11):1931-2 [PMID: 20381440]
  45. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2007 Jan;(152):1-26 [PMID: 17206953]
  46. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Jan;133(1):7-8 [PMID: 17224513]
  47. Rev Mal Respir. 2003 Nov;20(5 Pt 1):671-8 [PMID: 14631245]

Grants

  1. K24 AR053120/NIAMS NIH HHS
  2. R01 AR047328/NIAMS NIH HHS
  3. R01 AR062066/NIAMS NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0reviewpeerpeer-reviewprocesssystematicthemessearchliteraturearticlescriteriaauthorspublisheddifferentwillvaryreviewersjournalpaperresearchBACKGROUND:usefulnessexpressedmethodimprovequalityworkHoweverlackreviewsdatehighlightessentialMETHODS:performedEnglishlanguagepriorOctober2011usingPubMedidentifyregardingInclusionexclusiondevelopedprioriDataextractedanalyzedprevalencecontainedwithinRESULTS:941foundoriginal37selectedmajoritycommentary/editorialincludedstructuresystempapersethicsformsCONCLUSIONS:submissionprovidescomprehensiveoverviewexpectalsohighlightedethicalconsiderationsAlthoughtopicexpansivemayunderstandingoutlinedhelprecognizewritesuccessfulAlsomustcarriedestablishefficacystylespresumptuousdrawconclusionsestablishedscientificmanuscriptsEthicsPeerResearchmethodsSystematic

Similar Articles

Cited By