The Need, Types and Method of Peer Review

How do we define peer review?

Peer review is a kind of quality assurance programme and is also called as refereeing by some. In this process, the experts of your field look into the merits of your work. The purpose of doing that is to give a feedback to the editors of the journal regarding whether to proceed with the publication or not. They also offer unbiased suggestions regarding means to improvise a paper that has already been accepted or publication.

The entire process does not appear as very comfortable initially but it has an advantage in setting up the credibility of the researcher as a worthy contributor. It highlights what kind of opinion your peer hold about the quality and worthiness of your work.

Types of Peer Review:

There are usually three kinds of peer reviews:

  1. Open Peer Review
  2. Blind Peer Review
  3. Double Blind Peer Review

 

  1. Open Peer Review: The identity of the reviewer is not hidden from the author and vice versa
  2. Blind Peer Review: The identity of the reviewer is kept hidden from the author
  3. Double Blind Peer Review: It is the complete contrast of Open Peer Review where the identity of both, the author as well as the reviewer is kept hidden from each other.

What do Reviewers seek:

The task that is assigned to reviewers is to create a constructive argument either in favour or in against of your article. They usually, base their argument over more technical parameters, such as technical and factual evidence. They also take into consideration the writing style and how the entire content has been out across.

The reviewers need to have the eye to understand whether the article matches with the publication style and the expectations of the audiences. It should add value and worthiness to the journal. The kinds of questions that peer reviewers ask are:

  1. What kind of audience would be interested in reading the paper?
  2. What are the key claims of the paper?
  3. Have the claims been out across in an appropriate manner?
  4. Is the data analysis concrete and sound?
  5. Can readers beyond the field or of other discipines reach out to it?
  6. Would further work improvise it?