Zimba Olena, Gasparyan Armen Yuri
Department of Internal Medicine No. 2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.
Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
Reumatologia. 2021;59(1):3-8. doi: 10.5114/reum.2021.102709. Epub 2021 Feb 28.
The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.
同行评审过程对于期刊投稿的质量检查和验证至关重要。尽管它有一些局限性，包括操纵以及有偏见和不公平的评估，但该系统没有其他替代方案。目前实行几种同行评审模式，鉴于开放科学运动，公开评审是最合适的。建设性的审稿人意见越来越被视为应符合某些伦理和报告标准的学术贡献。Publons平台现在是科睿唯安旗下科学网集团的一部分，它认可经过验证的审稿人成就，并作为选择和推广最佳审稿人的工具。所有具有相关资质的作者都可以担任审稿人。建议遵循研究报告标准并访问书目数据库，以帮助审稿人起草基于证据的详细意见。
