week4-2 response

In software development, Peer (code) review is a required step to ensure quality of a deliverable meets the design standard as prescribed by an oversight body such as the enterprise architecture board. In many ways, I view peer review process in academic research similar to peer code review as both use a systematic and iterative approach to examine the content. The difference is in scale. Peer code review is typically performed by a small group of software engineers within the product engineering team. In academic , peer review process in academic research is performed by a large community of like-minded scholars to validate the research findings and make sure the authors adhere to the high standard of the discipline.

In their paper, Kelly et al. (2014) explained that peer review is an important part of academic writing because it holds the author(s) accountable knowing their work will be scrutinized by a reviewing committee. Like a litmus test, peer review keeps the researchers honest by having other scholars evaluate and challenge their findings. In addition, reviewers from diverse background can offer different perspectives which helps improve the quality of the research. The outcome of having a group of subject matter experts certifying the results will contribute to true advancement of knowledge in the field.

With so many outlets available online these days for publishing research manuscripts, having an established review process for academic research can provide the much-needed transparency to uncover conflict of interest, plagiarism, fraud and data falsification. Zinn & Goldsby (2016) posited that peer review process brings positive implication on ethical conducts among researchers.

Having said that, peer review if not implemented correctly, can fail to achieve its intended purpose. Most industry research that involves human subjects has their own review boards. For those without one, can introduce flaw to the process due to lack of streamlining and untrained reviewers (Smith, 2006). To address these concerns, Bagchi et al. (2017) recommended a few solutions which include: standardizing the procedures; providing training to reviewers; using checklists for review; and providing detailed feedback to the author.

Bagchi, R., Block, L., Hamilton, R. W., & Ozanne, J. L. (2017). A field guide for the review process: Writing and responding to peer reviews. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 860-872. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw066

Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T. & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227-243.

Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-182.

Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2016). The "invisible hands" in research: The critical roles of reviewers and associate editors. Journal of Business Logistics, 37(3), 202-204. doi:10.1111/jbl.12137