How Else Is Scientific Research Scrutinized?

In addition to peer review, how else is scientific research scrutinized? By a panel of government experts. By the entire scientific community after publication.

How is scientific research scrutinized?

Scientists scrutinize each other’s work. This helps maintain high scientific standards, balances biases that individuals might have, and catches instances of fraud. The scientific community provides a system of checks and balances that ensures the quality of scientific work, double-checks arguments, and makes sure that ideas are evaluated fairly. The community evaluates evidence and ideas. Scientists describe their work at conferences, in journal articles, and in books. By disseminating their ideas, study methods, and test results in these ways, scientists allow other community members to check their work, both by reviewing what has been done and trying to replicate all or part of it.

• This helps to ensure that evidence meets high standards, that all relevant lines of evidence are explored, that judgments are not based on flawed reasoning, and hence, that science moves in the direction of more and more accurate explanations.
• For example, in 1989, when two scientists claimed to have produced nuclear fusion at temperatures lower than was thought possible, the scientific community took a close look at their methods and results.

Community members found several ways to improve the experiments and several tests that the original researchers had failed to perform. Meanwhile, other scientists got started on trying to replicate the experimental results and discovered that they could not be consistently reproduced. The community balances biases. Scientists are people too. They come from different backgrounds, have different personal beliefs, and favor different hypotheses and theories — and all of that can result in unintentional biases — even when scientists strive to remain objective,

How do scientists check each other’s work?

Specification links – Download a list of specification points this article supports from the Education in Chemistry website rsc.li/EiCpeer. Download a list of specification points this article supports ( MS Word or pdf ). There is more to science than just conducting experiments.

1. Scientists also spend a lot of time applying for money from funders, reporting their results in research journals, and presenting their work at conferences.
2. Another important task every researcher does is peer review.
3. Peer review is where scientists check other scientists’ work to ensure only good scientific ideas and results are published and funded.

‘Peer review is a community-led activity and many consider it as an integral part of their job as a scientist,’ says May Copsey, the editor of Chemical Science, a journal that publishes cutting-edge research in chemistry. It’s the job of editors, like May and her team, to ensure papers are peer-reviewed before they get published in the journal.

For each paper submitted to the journal, they find suitable scientists with the right expertise to judge it and recommend whether it should be published. ‘You trust reviewers are giving their best opinion, because they want the best research to be published,’ says May. ‘However, it is an opinion, and these can vary.

That’s why we don’t ask one person, we ask at least two.’ Usually, for journals in chemistry fields, the editor keeps the reviewers’ identities secret from the paper authors. This is known as ‘single blind’ peer review. ‘If the authors knew who the referees were, the referees might be afraid to be honest about the paper.

Which of the following is a body of research that has been scrutinized by other scientists who are experts in the same area?

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide EJIFCC.2014 Oct; 25(3): 227–243. Published online 2014 Oct 24. PMCID: PMC4975196 1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Find articles by 1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Find articles by

• 1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
• 3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

Find articles by

1. 1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2. 2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3. 3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy
4. Corresponding author.

Clinical Biochemistry The Hospital for Sick Children University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario Canada, M5G 1X8 Disclosure The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article. © 2014 International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC).

• All rights reserved.
• This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License () which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
• Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.

It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review.

Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process.

It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community.

1. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication.
2. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important.
3. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism.

Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review.

This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review. Key words: peer review, manuscript, publication, journal, open access Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ().

Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication.

Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication. The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ().

The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician (). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit.

1. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care.
2. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ().

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public (). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence.

• In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ().
• His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ().
• In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ().

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 (), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ().

It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters.

The report of their identity is not known to the author.” (). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions (). Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ().

It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field.

Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors.

Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years. The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study.

The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform.

Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in ).

The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research.

Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ().

If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in,

1. Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base.
2. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers.
3. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field.

Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ().

1. Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives.
2. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.
3. Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all.

Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible.

1. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so.
2. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques.

Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material.

Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions (). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ().

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review (). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper (), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ().

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed (). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar.

1. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing.
2. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.
3. As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal.

The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles. Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references.

1. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study.
2. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise.
3. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ().

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper.

1. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ().
2. This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ().

1. The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ().
2. The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ().

• Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice.
• The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail.
• If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation (). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text.

The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant (). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies (). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected.

This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research (). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results.

Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study. The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results.

1. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper.
2. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication, and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field () to determine priority for publication.

An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in, How a peer review evaluates a manuscript To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission.

The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions. The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity.

1. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer.
2. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous.
3. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ().

It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors (). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author.

The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite (). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ().

According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value (). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ().

• Single-blind peer review is by far the most common.
• In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ().
• This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ().
• This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ().

The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first (). Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ().

This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea (), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ().

The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ().

1. Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality.
2. A study by Justice et al.
3. In 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ().
4. One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ().

There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors (). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ().

In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher (). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ().

Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality (). In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review.

• In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review.
• As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review.
• For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ().

Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review (). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged.

1. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ().
2. The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ().

Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print (). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing.

An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists (). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner (). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals.

• This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals.
• The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ().

Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes (). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals.

1. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.
2. Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ().

Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review (). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ().

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ (). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ (). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ().

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject (): Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review.

If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it. If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless. When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject.

Do not respond to the email, respond to the link. Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective. The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making.

1. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues.
2. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn.
3. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them. Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous.

Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review. Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives.

1. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.
2. A review requires structure and logical flow.
3. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity.

Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn.

Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve. In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ().

To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ().

The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively (). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts.

It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process (). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors.

1. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ().
2. The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ().

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about (). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section.

The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor (). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight.

It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document.

• Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ().
• It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ().

Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers (). When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ().

• It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ().
• Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ().

Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers (). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ().

Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ().

Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ().

An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section. A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature.

As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ (). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors.

• Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al.
• Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ().
• Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ().

This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted.

Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ().

1. Both organisations have been working to remove the papers.
2. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future.
3. It is available at this link: ().
4. Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism.

However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable.

The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ (). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue (). It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers.

Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ().

1. Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ().
2. Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ().

1. Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result.
2. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ().

On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research (). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review.

• For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ().
• In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted.

Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review (). Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ().

As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue (). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ().

Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper (). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

1. F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ().
2. F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ().

It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first (). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ().

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences (). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ‘, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ().

It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication (). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ().

PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish (). Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system (). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ().

According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again (). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match.

• This process could take months or even years ().
• Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ().
• Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ().

The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium (). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate (). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ().

1. The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ().
2. The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached.
3. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ().

Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ().

Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected (). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers (). According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ().

Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection (). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled (). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ().

Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact (). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review (). Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers.

Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.1.

” What Is Peer Review? ” (2014). Int J Comput Appl, Web. Retrieved July 02, 2014, from 2. ” Peer Review “. (2014). Elsevier Publishing Guidelines, Web. Retrieved June 24, 2014, from 3. Spier R. (2002). ” The History of the Peer-review Process. ” Trends Biotechnol, 20 ( 8 ): 357-358.4. Liumbruno GM., Velati C., Pasaualetti P., Franchini M.

(2012). ” How to Write a Scientific Manuscript for Publica-tíon. ” Blood Transfus, 11 ( 2 ): 217-226.5. ” Peer Review: What It Is, Why It’s Done and How to Do It “. Elsevier; Web. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from 6. Fitzpatrick K. (2009). ” Planned Obsolecence “.

• Media-Commons Press,
• Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 7. Ware M. (2008).
• Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives.
• PRC Summary Papers, 4 :4-20.8.
• Mulligan A. (2005).
• Is Peer Review in Crisis? ” Oral On-col.41 ( 2 ): 135-141.9.
• Simons-Morton B., Abraido-Lanza AF., Bernhardt JM., Schoenthaler A., Schnitzer A., Allegerante JP.

(2012). ” Demystifying Peer Review. “, 39 ( 1 ): 3-7.10. Swoger B. (2014). ” Post Publication Peer-review: Everything Changes, and Everything Stays the Same “. Scientific Americanblogs, Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 11. ” Peer Review 101. ” (2013). The American Physiological Society,

Web. Retrieved July 02, 2014, from 12. Schley D. (2009).” Peer Reviewers Satisfied with System,” Times Higher Education, Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 13. Ulrichsweb Global Science Directory. Web. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from 14. Saxby C, Richardson M. (2006). ” Assessing the Impact of Open Access “. Oxford Journals Preliminary Report,

Web. Retrieved July 11th, 2014 from 15. Steingraber S. (1985). ” Guidelines For Writing Scientific Papers “. Honors Organismal Biology Laboratory Manual, Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 16. ” Reviewers Information Pack “. (2011). International Conference on Mathematical Modeling in Physical Sciences,Web.

1. Retrieved July 04, 2014, from 17.
2. Justice AC., Cho MK., Winker MA., Berlin JA., Rennie D.
3. 1998).” Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? ” JAMA, 280 ( 3 ):240-242.18.
4. McNutt RA, Evans AT., Fletcher RH., Fletcher SW. (1990).
5. The Effects of Blinding on the Quality of Peer Review.
6. JAMA, 263 ( 10 ):1371-1376.19.

Kumar M. (2009). ” A Review of the Review Process: Manuscript Peer-review in Biomedical Research. ” Biology and Medicine, 1 ( 4 ): 1-16.20. Falagas ME. (2007). ” Peer Review in Open Access Scientific Journals. ” Open Medicine, 1 ( 1 ): 49-51.21. Bohannon J.

• 2013). ” Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? ” Science, 342 ( 6154 ):60-65.22. Lucey B. (2013).
• Peer Review: How to Get It Right – 10Tips.
• The Guardian, Web.
• Retrieved from 23.
• Nichols NL, Sasser JM. (2014).
• The Other Side of the Submit Button: How to Become a Reviewer for Scientific Journals.
• The Physiologist, 57 ( 2 ): 88-91.24.

Hoppin FG., Jr. (2002). ” How I Review an Original Scientific Article. ” Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 166 ( 8 ): 1019-1023.25. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. (2002). ” Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review. ” JAMA, 287 ( 21 ): 2784-2786.26.

Sample I. (2014). ” How Computer-generated Fake Papers Are Flooding Academia. ” The Guardian, Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 27. Sattary L. (2009). ” Peer Review under the Microscope. ” Royal Society of Chemistry,Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 28. Corbyn Z. (2008). ” Call to Scrap Peer Review in Hunt for Brilliant Ideas.

” Times Higher Education, Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 29. Colquhoun D. (2011). ” Publish-or-perish: Peer Review and the Corruption of Science. ” The Guardian,Web. Retrieved from 30. Retraction Watch. Web. Retrieved June 27, 2014, from 31. Jennings CG. (2006).

Quality and Value: The True Purpose of Peer Review. ” Nature blogs, Web. Retrieved July 11, 2014 from 32. Tippmann S. (2014). ” New Avenues For Peer Review: An (Audio) Interview With Eva Amsen. ” Peer Review Watch, Web. Retrieved July 07, 2014 from 33. Wesolek A. (2013). ” OA Now Interview with Peter Binfield of PeerJ.

” Open Access Now. Web. Retrieved July 07, 2014 from 34. ” Two Publications “. (2012). Peer J. Web. Retrieved July 08, 2014, from 35. Meadows A. (2013). ” A New Approach to Peer Review – an Interview with Keith Collier, Co-founder of Rubriq. ” Wiley Exchanges,

Are all scientific studies peer-reviewed?

Ask for Evidence | Always ask: is it peer reviewed? No matter how exciting or compelling a new piece of scientific or medical research is, you should always ask: Is it peer reviewed? And if not, why not? Journals have a system for assessing the quality of research before it is published.

This system is called peer review. Peer review means that other scientific experts working in the same field have been sent a research paper before publication and checked it for validity, significance and originality. If a scientific paper is published in a journal that’s a good sign it has been approved by other experts.

Note, not all journals are peer reviewed – you can check usually check on their website. Some of the headlines about new scientific discoveries or breakthroughs you read or hear about have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. They may be initial findings reported at conferences, for example, or based on one scientist’s opinion.

Some of this research may turn out to be accurate, but much of it is flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, are never replicated by other research groups, or turn out to be untrue. Unpublished research is no help to anyone – if you don’t publish exactly how a study was carried out, others can’t decide whether your methods were valid or repeat them to verify the results. As a society it is unwise to base decisions about health or public safety on work that may well be flawed.

Read to learn more about peer review. Peer review isn’t perfect, but asking ‘is it peer reviewed?’ helps filter out the obviously bogus. Increasingly, as more scientists communicate on social media and write blogs about their work, there’s a phenomenon called post-publication peer review.

• That’s a term to describe the (usually informal) discussion that experts in any given area of research will have about newly published research in that area.
• So to get a sense of how a particular study was received by the wider scientific community, it’s worth searching for blogs or mentions from other scientists about it.

: Ask for Evidence | Always ask: is it peer reviewed?

How do you verify scientific research?

Verifying the science you read can be tricky. After reading a scientific publication, check the underlying assumptions and look for internal consistencies. Look up references and studies the publication was based on, and talk to a scientist in a relevant field for more verification and clarification.

1. 1 Take note of verifiable facts as you read. Whether the science you read is an article, book, or web page, read the text in its entirety. As you read, pay attention to details. Write down or make a mental note of things that are confusing or unclear. Use a highlighter or pen to underline, circle, or highlight facts that can be verified.
   • Verifiable facts are those which are based in objective reality rather than on opinion, conjecture, or unfounded belief.
2. 2 Consult referenced data. All verifiable science relies on the work of other scientists to establish its credibility and inspire further studies. One way to verify the science you read is to follow up on the information provided in the study’s footnotes.
   • If you’re reading science in a popular publication, sources will be cited in the text rather than in footnotes or endnotes.
   • Non-specialized sources should describe specific studies but might not refer to published peer-reviewed article by name. They might also refer to certain scientists or authors, or to the titles of scientific journals where relevant publications appeared. Use this information to track down more information whenever possible.
   • You can also refer to review articles, which summarize all of the previous findings of a particular field.
3. 3 Talk to a scientist. If you’re confused about the science you read, contact a relevant scientist to help you verify it. For instance, if you wish to verify an astronomical report you read, you could contact an astronomer. If you wish to verify a physics issue, contact a physics professor.
   • When you’ve discovered someone to help you verify the science you read, contact them and pose your question. Always be polite and professional when communicating with professional scientists.
   • Preferably, you will contact more than one expert in the field of the science you read. This will give you a range of opinions regarding whether the science you read is accurate.
4. 4 Look out for red flags. When you’re reading through sources, there are some red flags you should look out for that may indicate the source isn’t reliable. If you see any of the following red flags, be extra cautious when using the source material:
   • The source hasn’t been referenced elsewhere.
   • The author hasn’t written anything other than the one source.
   • The author mostly cites themselves.
   • The author’s findings haven’t been replicated elsewhere.

1. 1 Look at declarative statements. If you read science that has lots of declarative statements (for instance, “It is large”) and is low on quantifiable (numbers-based) data, steer clear. Verifiable science will utilize specific numbers, measurements, and sizes when reporting results.
2. 2 Check the terms used. Look out for vague or imprecise language. Likewise, avoid science that uses common scientific terms in a novel way. Verifiable science will use terms that other scientists in the field would readily understand.
   • For instance, if the science you read says, “The heart-consciousness will heal you when you are ready,” you can safely discount it, since there is no “heart-consciousness” known to heal the human body.
3. 3 Beware of facts that are stated absolutely. Many scientific questions are settled and have been for many years. For instance, the science you read might contain clear and categorical explanations regarding why the stars shine or why trees grow. However, some scientific questions are still open to exploration, and the answers are less clear.
   • For instance, the scientific understanding of why we dream remains imperfect. So if the science you read states, “This is why we dream,” instead of a more cautious statement like, “This may be why we dream” or “This could be why we dream,” be wary.
4. 4 Look for internal inconsistencies. If the science you read has charts and statistics that do not jive with the conclusions drawn by the author, you can discount the publication as flawed. Likewise, if the science you read has two conclusions which are at odds, or two data points that contradict each other, the science should be considered untrustworthy.

1. 1 Choose trusted publications. High-quality science might come from trusted governments, universities, individuals, peer-reviewed journals, and some nonprofit organizations. When checking a book or article for quality, it should be written by someone with significant experience in their scientific field.
   • Lay publications will, of course, likely be written by someone without a PhD. The author might even be a student. If the lay publication is trusted, you may consider it a reliable source.
   • Choosing high-quality sources means someone has already verified the science for you before you read it.
   • Some citation databases list how many times a source has been cited by academics. The more a source has been cited, the more credible it is.
2. 2 Only use sources which are free of apparent bias. Poor quality sources are those which have a vested interest in the scientific results or data they are verifying or refuting. For instance, if you read science produced by a fossil fuel company regarding the polluting impact of their products, the company is producing scientific research which could directly impact its fortunes.
   • Good sources will provide a high degree of transparency, and include disclaimers regarding funding sources. They will also name all participants in the scientific research.
3. 3 Compare the science you read to other publications on the subject. One way to verify the science you read is to check it against other sources on the topic. After reading a scientific article or publication, look the topic up in an encyclopedia or another trusted text. This way, you will learn what the consensus view on the subject is.
   • Comparing the science you read against many other publications will help you determine whether the science you read is consistent with mainstream scientific thought.

Ask a Question 200 characters left Include your email address to get a message when this question is answered. Submit

Google Scholars is a good place to search for high-quality, reliable sources.

Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 24,237 times.

How do scientists know what they think they know?

Science is a team sport. – Scientists spend a lot of time doing similar studies over and over, testing and building on each other’s work. When many studies come to similar conclusions, we can be more confident that those conclusions are right. This can lead to scientific consensus and help build knowledge.

How do scientists find answers?

Scientists find answers using tests : When scientists want to answer a question, they search for evidence using experiments. An experiment is a test to see if their explanation is right or wrong. Evidence is made up of the observations a scientist makes during an experiment.

Who do scientists share their research with?

Science only moves forward when the findings of research investigations are communicated widely. After carrying out the experiment (an original investigation) and using the results to inform a conclusion as to the appropriateness of your hypothesis ( Chapter 2 ), you are ready to share your findings ( Figure 6.1 ).

Initially, research outcomes are communicated within the scientific community by scientists themselves. Results are then presented outside of the scientific community, by scientists or other professionals, such as science journalists and teachers. Typically, scientists communicate their work within the scientific community by writing and publishing research articles and presenting posters and oral communications at scientific conferences.

It is through these modes of communication that scientists have their work put through the gruelling test of peer review, where the work is both criticised and commended by other expert scientists. Only work that is recommended by peers will find its way to an issue of a peer-reviewed journal.

Peer-reviewed refers to the process by which scholarly work is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the journal standards before it is accepted or published. The peer-review process for oral communications and poster presentations at scientific conferences is a little less gruelling than for journals, although, a peer-review process is still applied before the work is accepted by conference organisers.

Although many scientists will grimace at the mention of ‘peer-review’, it is through this process that we increase the likelihood that valid science (and not pseudoscience) is shared with the world. Peer review is an essential part of the scientific process, to make important economic and health-related decisions that affect the future prosperity of humanity.

As with all forms of communication, scientific research articles, oral communications and poster presentations need to be prepared and delivered according to specific guidelines and using particular language. It is important that student scientists begin to understand these guidelines and are given opportunities to practise these forms of communication.

This chapter provides a roadmap for preparing and delivering these important modes of scientific communication. Figure 6.1: The scientific method and the final stage – sharing results. Source: Image by Nikki Andersen adapted from La Trobe University, and used under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence. A research article reports the results of original research, assesses its contribution to the body of knowledge in a given area, and is published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Figure 6.2: Example of an original research article published in Physiological Reports, Source: Physiological Reports, used under a CC BY 2.0 licence. Research articles generally step the reader through the stages of the study. An example of a research article presenting the results of an original investigation is shown in below.

There are now 1000s of peer-reviewed journals in which scientists can publish the outcomes of their research. Each journal will have a slightly different format for their papers, but generally will include an abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusion, and references section.

In addition, some journals are requiring plain English summaries. We will look at each section in turn and provide some tips for writing each section for your research. When looking at each section of a journal article, we will highlight how the authors have presented certain information processes.

How many scientific papers are retracted?

Approximately 500–600 papers are retracted each year, either because of scientific misconduct or honest errors. Many of these retractions are due to data that has been fabricated, falsified or plagiarized. How do you find out whether the paper you are reading has been retracted?

What is the difference between scientific research and social research?

Difference Between Social Research and Scientific Research | Compare the Difference Between Similar Terms Both research areas, social and scientific, are crucial in understanding the social and natural phenomena and generating new knowledge; however, there is difference between social research and scientific research in many aspects.

The purpose of a research is to generate new knowledge. Scientists do researches on the physical aspects of the world whereas social scientists conduct researches to analyze social behavior of human beings. In both cases, scientists use various methods to carry out their work and these methods vary based on the research.

Social scientists use social research and this could be either qualitative or quantitative or both. Scientific research is used in natural sciences and the methods are mostly quantitative. However, both research areas are important in understanding the natural and social phenomena.

Are all scientific studies reliable?

There is growing concern that a substantial proportion of scientific research may in fact be false. A number of factors have been proposed as contributing to the presence of a large number of false-positive results in the literature, one of which is publication bias. We discuss empirical evidence for these factors.

What studies are not peer-reviewed?

Broadly speaking, a non peer reviewed source is anything that is NOT a peer reviewed journal article. A government publication, book or book chapter, a newspaper or magazine article, a website or blog post, a documentary film, or a document published by a government agency are all examples of non-peer reviewed sources.

When submitting assignments, be sure to consult your course materials and professor for specific guidelines about acceptable source types. One other non-peer reviewed source is an article from a trade journal, Trade journals, also called trade publications, trade magazines or professional magazines, are magazines or newspapers whose target audience is people who work in a particular profession or industry.

Articles in these publications are often short and the publications may contain advertisements. Examples of trade publications include Chronicle of Higher Education, Education Week, Ad Week, etc. JEWL Search and some other databases offer a source type limit for trade publications.

Can scientific knowledge be verified?

Abstract. Scientific knowledge is supposed to be verifiable. Replications promote verifiability in several ways. Most straightforwardly, replications can verify empirical claims.

How do scientists ensure that their data is reliable?

The fields of science span the totality of natural phenomena and their styles are enormously varied. Consequently, science is too broad an enterprise to permit many generalizations about its conduct. One theme, however, threads through its many fields: the primacy of scrupulously recorded data.

Because the techniques that researchers employ to ensure the truth and accuracy of their data are as varied as the fields themselves, there are no universal procedures for achieving technical accuracy. There are, however, some broadly accepted practices for pursuing science. In most fields of science, for instance, experimental observations must be shown to be reproducible in order to be creditable.1 Other practices include checking and rechecking data to ensure that the interpretation is valid, and also submitting the results to peer review to further confirm that the findings are sound.

Yet other practices may be employed only within specific fields, for instance, the use of double-blind trials, or the independent verification of important results in separate laboratories. Although the pervasive use of high-speed computing and communications in research has vastly expanded the capabilities of researchers, if used inappropriately or carelessly, digital technologies can lower the quality of data and compromise the integrity of research.2 Digitization may introduce spurious information into a representation, and complex digital analyses of data can yield misleading results if researchers are not scrupulously careful in monitoring and understanding the analysis process.

Because so much of the processing and communication of digital data are done by computers with relatively little human oversight, erroneous data can be rapidly multiplied and widely disseminated. Some projects generate so much data that significant patterns or signals can be lost in a deluge of information.

As an example of the challenges posed by digital research data, Box 2-1 explores these issues in the context of particle physics research.

What are the 3 methods of science investigation?

Science, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences, is “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” So what does that definition mean? If you look up the definition in an online dictionary, you will see something similar to the following: Notice that the definition has two parts. The first part, “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world,” is a noun. These are the facts that you learn in science class such as the formula for photosynthesis or the different types of chemical reactions.

1. However, science is more than facts.
2. The second part of the definition, “gained through observation and experimentation,” indicates that science is also a verb.
3. Science is a process.
4. It is a way of observing, a way of thinking, and a way of knowing about the world.
5. The goal of science is to provide explanations for events that happen in nature.

Scientists use those explanations to understand patterns in nature and make predictions about future events. Look at the following three investigations. How are they alike? How are they different?

Investigation 1	Investigation 2	Investigation 3
A student used a microscope to observe an amoeba to determine how the organism moved.	A student used a hand lens to examine the color and texture of four different rocks.	A student planted rye grass seeds in potting soil in three plastic cups, placing them on a window sill, and watering one daily, one every third day, and one not at all.

Scientists use three types of investigations to research and develop explanations for events in the nature: descriptive investigation, comparative investigation, and experimental investigation, Cite Source Sources of images used for this section as they appear, top to bottom: Amoeba proteus, Tashiror, MicrobeWiki Metamorphic rock samples, Glaitness Class, Blogspot Plant experiment, Dennis Anderson, Oklahoma City Community College

What is scrutiny in research methodology?

Scrutiny of Data | Hashtag Info Systems Data scrutiny focuses on inference, the process of deriving a conclusion based solely on what is already known by the researcher. Your data needs to be curated, cleansed, enriched and translated into actionable insights before it can be put to work doing something meaningful.

How is research study reported?

Features of a Research Report – So how do you recognize a research report when you see one? Here are some of the basic features that define a research report.

• It is a detailed presentation of research processes and findings, and it usually includes tables and graphs.
• It is written in a formal language.
• A research report is usually written in the third person.
• It is informative and based on first-hand verifiable information.
• It is formally structured with headings, sections, and bullet points.
• It always includes recommendations for future actions.

How is scientific research biased?

I. Definition and scope of bias – Bias is defined as any tendency which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question 6, In research, bias occurs when “systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others” 7,

• Bias can occur at any phase of research, including study design or data collection, as well as in the process of data analysis and publication ( Figure 1 ).
• Bias is not a dichotomous variable.
• Interpretation of bias cannot be limited to a simple inquisition: is bias present or not? Instead, reviewers of the literature must consider the degree to which bias was prevented by proper study design and implementation.

As some degree of bias is nearly always present in a published study, readers must also consider how bias might influence a study’s conclusions 8, Table 1 provides a summary of different types of bias, when they occur, and how they might be avoided. Major Sources of Bias in Clinical Research

What makes scientific research trustworthy?

The following article is authored by Heather Douglas.

The trustworthiness of science should not require scientific expertise to assess. Trustworthiness should be based on the presence of expertise, good expert community functioning, and shared values. This basis for trustworthiness is usable by the public, and does not require expert consensus, while capturing the value of consensus. To foster trust with the public, scientists should 1) ensure their expert communities foster debate among diverse participants and from diverse perspectives and 2) share the value commitments that shape their science.

​ Why should the public trust science? The instrumental successes science has facilitated (e.g., eliminating smallpox, airplanes, the internet, etc.) provide one possible answer, but this does not consider past instrumental failures, where the promises of science have failed to deliver or brought unwelcome effects with them (e.g., failures to handle nuclear waste (Jacoby, 2020), worldwide contamination from plastics (Ritchie and Roser, 2022), localised and intractable chemical contamination (Environmental Working Group, 2022), etc.). Others have argued that consensus among experts is a key metric for trustworthiness. However, scientists have settled on consensus views that have been wrong in the past (e.g., erroneous claims about racial hierarchies, faulty understandings of diseases such as the causes of ulcers). Sophisticated views on the trustworthiness of consensus have emphasised the need for consensus to be properly formed after sufficiently robust debate among a diverse group of experts (Anderson, 2012; Oreskes, 2019). Not just any consensus will do. But this puts a great deal of pressure on consensus. Properly formed consensus can take a long time to coalesce, particularly if debate is sufficiently robust. What is the public to do in the meantime, before consensus has emerged? Further, this incentivises the prevention of consensus, often by disingenuous means, by those whose interests would be harmed by an emerging consensus. For example, fossil fuel interests founded fake academic journals and poured money into climate denial think tanks in order to give the appearance that consensus on the causes of climate change had not yet been reached (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). Years of delay resulted. What is needed is an account of trust in science that enables the public to assess current science for trustworthiness, does not need to wait for a consensus to emerge, and can actually be utilised by a non-expert public. There are three bases central to assessing scientific expertise for trustworthiness: 1) the presence of expertise, 2) the engagement of the expert in a well-functioning expert community and 3) the sharing of values with the public, The presence of expertise can be assessed through either past successes of the expert, because they have made a series of good judgment calls in their area of expertise that have proven correct, or through their explanations of their judgments as experts. The latter route is particularly important in cases where the success of expert judgments cannot be readily assessed because of the timeframes or complexity of systems involved. If one cannot assess the success of an expert directly, does the expert provide an account for why they think what they think? While degrees and awards can also help, they are not necessary. What is necessary is that the expert be engaged in a community of experts, continually debating and refining their expertise. It is only in concert with other expertise that reliable judgments get honed. Assessing the community of experts can be challenging for the public, but aspects to look for are forums for debating views (e.g., conferences and journals) and an openness to the involvement of experts from a wide range of backgrounds. Expert communities that exclude others because of gender, ethnicity or class should be viewed as less trustworthy. Finally, it is important that experts share values with members of the public, particularly social and ethical values. This is because experts need to frame their research problems in ways that capture the concerns of the public (e.g., not just treatments of diseases, but also risks of those treatments). Experts should share some of the values of the public in how they choose to define and pursue their research. In addition, experts need to assess when the evidence is sufficiently strong to support a scientific claim, and such judgments of evidential sufficiency need to weigh the risks any errors of judgment pose to the public – which requires social and ethical values. Part of expert judgment is that the available evidence is strong enough—or not—to support scientific statements. Risks of accepting a statement too soon, or waiting too long, include risks to the public. Social and ethical values are thus central to the practice of expertise, even if they do not – and should not – determine the results of scientific inquiry. (Douglas, 2017; 2021) A trustworthy scientific expert is thus someone who fulfils the above criteria, even when consensus has not yet formed among scientists. When debate is ongoing, members of the public can place trust in such an expert. The expert would make judgments about the science the way a member of the public would if they had the necessary expertise. This view of what grounds the trustworthiness of scientific expertise for the public encompasses cases of consensus. When we have a properly formed scientific consensus, it will be produced by genuine experts engaged with a diverse and well-functioning expert community and at least some of those experts who share the consensus view will share the requisite public values. The public can presume that there are at least some experts who participated in the consensus formation, who raised important issues in the debate leading to consensus, and who would make crucial judgments as they would if they had the needed expertise. This makes the consensus trustworthy. What does this mean for scientists? First, scientists should build a welcoming expert community that brings in the needed diversity of backgrounds. Second, scientists should ensure openness about ongoing debates and expert discussions, showing that the scientific community functions as it should. Third, when social and ethical values frame the problems scientists address and the judgments about evidential sufficiency for scientific claims, scientists should ensure that their values overlap with those of the public. Doing so will foster trust in science (Hicks and Lobato, 2022). Have you seen? Recalibrate – our policies were too heavy on efficiency, too light on equity A new place for publics in science From ivory towers to glass houses, science is transforming Public trust in science must be earned References Anderson, E.2012, ‘Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony’, vol.8, no.2, pp.144-164, DOI:10.3366/epi.2011.0013. Douglas, H.2017, Science, values, and citizens. In Eppur si muove: Doing history and philosophy of science with Peter Machamer (pp.83-96). Springer, Cham. Douglas, H.2021, The Rightful Place of Science: Science, Values, and Democracy, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, Arizona. Environmental Working Group 2022, PFAS Contamination in the U.S. (June 8, 2022), Environmental Working Group, viewed 12 December 2022, “>https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/> Hicks, D.J. and Lobato, E.J.C.2022, ‘Values disclosures and trust in science: A replication study” Frontiers in Communication, vol.7, no.1017362, DOI: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.1017362. Jacoby, M.2020, ‘As Nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solution’, Chemical and Engineering News, 30 March, viewed 12 December 2022, “>https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12>, Oreskes, N 2019, Why Trust Science?, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Oreskes, N. and Conway, E.M.2010, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Bloomsbury Press, New York. Ritchie, H. and Roser, M.2022, Plastic pollution, Our World in Data, viewed 12 December 2022, “>https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution>,, Heather Douglas is a philosopher of science who works on the relationships among science, values, and democratic publics. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Michigan State University. She is an AAAS fellow, and was Senior Visiting Fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh (2021-2022). She is the author of Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal (2009), The Rightful Place of Science: Science, Values, and Democracy (2021), and editor of the book series Science, Values, and the Public for University of Pittsburgh Press. The facts, ideas and opinions expressed in this piece are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO or any of its partners and stakeholders and do not commit nor imply any responsibility thereof. The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this piece do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.