Peer Review and the Development of a Science

Abstract

The term scholarly is often used to describe manuscripts that are written to disseminate knowledge developed from the systematic study of observed phenomena or variables of interest. Once a body of knowledge has been developed from the accumulation of scholarly works, the science of a discipline is established and theories specifi c to the discipline can be developed and tested. Th e discipline of healthcare architecture and design is an emerging science and is building its accumulation of scholarly works. HERD is one of the major repositories for such scholarly works, and an important distinction between HERD and other architectural and design journals is the fact that it is a peer-reviewed or refereed journal.Why is that so important? Why is it not suffi - cient for the editors of a journal to review the manuscripts and recommend their acceptance, revision, or rejection? Th e reason is simple: the risk that the state of the science could be infl uenced by the manuscripts accepted or rejected by the editors if a journal is not peer reviewed. Th ere is a risk that the editor's personal and professional biases might infl uence the selection of manuscripts for publication and thereby shape the development of the discipline's science. Th e peer review process not only ensures scholarly publications, but it also promotes the unbiased advancement of the science (Dipboye, 2006).What Is Peer Review?Peer reviewed or refereed are terms used to describe manuscripts that have been subject to a panel of external reviewers who do not know the identity of the author but who read and critique a manuscript for the soundness of its content, methodology, recommendations, and conclusions. Peer review is a critical element of the production of scholarly work and a formal process that journals use to ensure that the content they publish represents the best scholarship currently available. Peer reviewers are a panel of content and methodology experts who partner with the editorial team, but often they are not formally recognized or acknowledged for the work they do in the development of scientifi c knowledge for the discipline.Th e review panel is blinded from the name of the author(s) and from the names and recommendations of the other reviewers. Generally, there is agreement among the reviewers regarding their recommendations to the editor to accept the manuscript as written, accept it with minor or major revisions, or simply to reject the manuscript. Th ere are times, however, when the reviewers do not agree on their recommendations, leaving the editor to make the fi nal dispensation regarding a manuscript's publishability, to reject it, or to have the manuscript reviewed further by another panel of reviewers. Th e work of the reviewers is critical to the editorial process and helps authors revise their manuscripts, thus making them more methodologically sound, interesting to read, and accurate.Qualifi cations of a Peer ReviewerAs the name implies, peer reviewers are considered to be peers within the profession, but they may also have specifi c content expertise in the area that is the focus of a manuscript. In research manuscripts, editors may select one or more peers with research expertise to review and advise them about a study's design and the methodology of data collection, statistical analysis, or results and inferences reported from the study's fi ndings. Although all disciplines have a unique body of knowledge, there is a shared language in research and in interdisciplinary sciences such as healthcare design, and the peers selected by the editor to review a manuscript may include healthcare professionals as well as professionals from the design industry. For some manuscripts, the editors may select academic researchers in combination with practice experts to provide a broad perspective on both the scientifi c and practical aspects of the fi eld.Th e most important qualifi cation for a peer reviewer is the simple willingness to share knowledge and experience in this capacity and to be available to review one or two manuscripts per year. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.