respnse 4-1

2

According to Hernandez (2009), the process of peer-reviewing academic works helps a researcher become a better writer. He contends that doing peer reviews often will help a researcher begin to understand the good and bad of different study methodologies. It creates awareness that helps a researcher improve their work. Unfortunately, he counters this position with the assertion that there is a fundamental lack of training on how to effectively conduct peer reviews. The availability of information on how to properly conduct a systematic and critical review of a paper is limited. This limitation leaves the process strategy open to interpretation by the researcher, using his or her own experience as the barometer to gauge the work’s completeness. Inexperienced reviewers can find the task of peer reviewing daunting. To help researchers navigate this sea of uncertainty, he offered several tips. Here are a few of the ones that seem most beneficial for this discussion:

            1. Read with skepticism

            2. Read from back to front

            3. Read the abstract then skim the paper to find the relevant points

            4. Visualize what the study should look like as you read it

            5. Determine if the objectives are clear

            6. Determine if the author justified the study in a logical manner

            7. Determine if the method used answered the research question

            8. Assess whether the interpretations and analysis are supported by the data

            Similarly, Pearson (2014) viewed peer reviews as an effective tool for those within comparable industries to measure quality, performance, and contribution made by others. He posited that the peer review process enables an effective level of assurance that there is high-quality, ethical, and professional content within a paper. He argued that a peer review adds rigor to the ethical balance of a paper by establishing trustworthiness against plagiarism, authorship, and fabricated data. This is an important consideration for maintaining credibility. He also offered some pointers on how to conduct an effective peer review by providing the link to the COPE website (https://publicationethics.org/peerreview) that was presented by Irene Hames (2013). Pearson (2014) also added that it is important to use two or more peer reviewers to receive multiple perspectives. This helps reduce unintended bias. Similarly, Ms. Hames (2013) recommended not sharing information during the review process to avoid inserting bias. She also cautioned it is advisable to stay away from other external issues or considerations such as regional or political matters not related to the review.

References

Hames, I. (2013). COPE’s new Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: Background, issues, and evolution. International Society of Managing and Technical Editors,  (4). Retrieved from http://www.ismte.org/resource/resmgr/files/hames_article.pdf

Hernandez, L. V. (2009). Becoming a reviewer is good for you—the peer-review process. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 70(6), 1159-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.026

Pearson, G. S. (2014). The peer-review process. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 50(2), 77-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12068