Ponderings on peer review: Part I. Basic principles

Abstract

In Part 1 of this Perspective, I share my thoughts on several basic principles of scientific peer review for early career-stage investigators. I begin by defining scientific peer review and its primary goals and briefly discuss the historical development of peer review. I then describe the reputed benefits of the process for science and society. Next, I characterize the "2-stage" structure of peer review, as well as the most prevalent evaluation formats used for determining scientific merit of peer-reviewed documents, including grant applications and manuscripts. I then discuss the primary responsibilities and core values of scientific peer review and offer several general tips for how to be an effective scientific peer reviewer. I next share commonly voiced concerns about the peer review process and oft-cited suggestions for improving the system. I finish the commentary by emphasizing numerous benefits of having a sound working knowledge of peer review for enhancing research career development and describe various opportunities for obtaining experience in peer review. This discussion of general issues is intended to lay a proper foundation upon which to address specific aspects of peer review of manuscripts in part 2 and grant applications in part 3 of the Perspective.

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 — 8 citations exist upstream.

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