{"id":920,"date":"2014-06-23T21:22:21","date_gmt":"2014-06-23T21:22:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/?p=920"},"modified":"2016-01-06T18:09:10","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T18:09:10","slug":"what-are-peer-review-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/what-are-peer-review-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"What are peer review systems?"},"content":{"rendered":"
[Editor\u2019s note: This is the third\u00a0of a series of posts on\u00a0a peer review mechanism pilot for think tanks<\/a>. It has been edited by Andrea Ordo\u00f1ez as part of the\u00a0Guest Editor initiative\u00a0<\/a>launched by On Think Tanks last year. If you are interested in being a Guest Editor please get in touch.]<\/em><\/p>\n As shared in the\u00a0introductory post<\/a>, the principle of peer review is simple. Its implementation, however, is not at all that straightforward (Review an\u00a0interesting timeline of the concept<\/a>).<\/p>\n The first critical question is why we carry out peer review processes. There is not one answer for this, so let\u2019s explore some of them.<\/p>\n Gatekeeping<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 By filtering and screening material, the peer review system is the way in which journals have traditionally decided on what to publish or what not to publish. The reviewers usually face the following recommendation choices:<\/p>\n Peer reviews also have a place in grant making processes and academic conferences presentations. At the end of the day, the objective is to distribute limited space, time and resources: not everybody can get funding, get published or present at conferences.<\/p>\n Maintain reputation<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 It has been argued\u00a0that peer review processes were popularized by the Royal Society to protect its reputation<\/a>. Reputation is thus based on the quality of those involved in the review process, which is why being part of a journal editorial board is a highly regarded position among researchers. Furthermore, the decision of publishing or not is not only based on the editor\u2019s judgment, but includes that of others.<\/p>\n Quality control<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 Peer review processes are supposed to ensure that research papers are consistent: that an appropriate methodology is used, that conclusions presented are backed by the research undertaken, and that other relevant knowledge on the subject is correctly acknowledge (basically, a good literature review).<\/p>\n Capacity development<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 although this aspect is not the main concern of the world of publishing, I believe that receiving input about one\u2019s work is a valuable opportunity to improve one\u2019s work. This usually requires a capacity to interpret and critically analyse comments holistically. Many think tanks I know introduce peer review as a mechanism to support researchers, even when peer review is not used for the previous purposes.<\/p>\n Although the peer review process is a keystone in the academic world, it is not perfect. At the end of the day, the responsibility of the research paper is the authors\u2019. Fraud and plagiarism cannot be detected by a reviewer. A peer review is no guarantee of the validity of the research presented; that responsibility lies with the authors. In fact,\u00a0Springer recently retracted 120 papers that were actually computer-generated nonsense<\/a>. Authors can act unethically, and reviewers may not have enough information to judge those actions.<\/p>\n This brief overview of the peer review processes shows how this simple concept, in practice, gets quite complex. This is not meant to discourage researchers from participating in such endeavours but to do so with a critical perspective.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Andrea Ordo\u00f1ez writes about a new peer review mechanism for think tanks that the Think Tank initiative has piloted recently. She has produced a series of posts that explore the approach, consider possible lessons learned, and outlines recommendations for future efforts. In this post, Andrea discusses peer review systems and the particular challenges faced in the implementation of the Think Tank Initiative’s Peer Review System.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"tags":[182],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/920"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Objectives and limitations<\/h3>\n
\n
Criticisms of the peer review processes<\/h3>\n
\n