Peer Review
From: Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.
by Nicholas H. Steneck
Peer review - evaluation by colleagues with similar knowledge and experience - is an essential component of research and the self-regulation of professions. The average person does not have the knowledge and experience needed to assess the quality and importance of research. Peers do. Therefore many important decisions about research depend on advice from peers, including which projects to fund (grant reviews), which research findings to publish (manuscript reviews), which scholars to hire and promote (personnel reviews), and which research is reliable (literature reviews and expert testimony).
The quality of the decisions made in each case depends heavily on the quality of peer review. Peer review can make or break professional careers and directly influence public policy. The fate of entire research programs, health initiatives, or environmental and safety regulations can rest on peer assessment of proposed or completed research projects. All major funding agencies today require peer review of grant applications, and a majority of journals require peer review of submitted manuscripts. Professional advancement is based on the ability to get articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers who serve as peer reviewers should be mindful of the public as well as the professional consequences of their evaluations and exercise special care when making these evaluations.
A peer reviewer of an article or a grant application has several responsibilities:
Although peer review has been ongoing for more than 200 years, it has been the subject of criticism, such as:
- Reviewers may have biases that they are unable to disregard when they read a grant application or paper. Such biases can include disagreements with methods used in a paper or grant, dislike for an author's or applicant's institution, dislike of the author or applicant, and competition with the author or grant applicant.
- Peer review may not allow controversial or innovative research to enter into the literature or to be used as the basis for a grant application, because reviewers often subscribe to the prevailing paradigm.
- Peer reviewers may not be forthcoming in admitting financial conflicts of interest that they might have in reviewing a paper or grant application.
- Reviewers may not admit their lack of expertise in reviewing a paper or grant application.
- The peer-review process does not always find errors.
- Gender bias may occur in reviewing. Some studies show that female authors were accepted more by female reviewers than by male reviewers.
- Peer review does not prevent papers from getting published. Although an article might be rejected by one publication, a persistent author will get it published in another.
Until another method is developed, peer review remains the best way for experts to assess the quality of research to be funded or published. Those who perform it with integrity are fulfilling their obligations to the scientific community, according to Joe Cain, writing in Science and Engineering Ethics in 1999. Reviewers advocate for standards when they reject poor work and improve the field by giving constructive criticism and maintaining the knowledge base when they accept good work. Scientist reviewers also preserve professional authority when they decline to have the government review articles or use internal reviewers for external grant applications.