同行评审的关键作用：挑战与未来举措。
The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps.
作者信息
El-Guebaly Nady, Foster John, Bahji Anees, Hellman Matilda
机构信息
University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
University of Greenwich, London, UK.
出版信息
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):14-21. doi: 10.1177/14550725221092862. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
Abstract
The critical role of peer reviewers in the publishing process is examined. Examples of typical challenges are provided, including the relative lack of rewards for this important task. Particular attention is paid to the need to consider the diversity of the peer reviewers recruited and impediments to the selection beyond Areas of Competence, often due to the small available pool. Finally, recommendations for improvement are suggested.
摘要
本文探讨了同行评审员在出版过程中的关键作用。文中提供了一些典型挑战的例子，包括这项重要任务相对缺乏奖励。特别关注了需要考虑所招募同行评审员的多样性，以及由于可用人才库较小，在选择过程中超出能力范围的障碍。最后，提出了改进建议。
相似文献
1
The critical role of peer reviewers: Challenges and future steps.
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):14-21. doi: 10.1177/14550725221092862. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
2
[The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Sep;108(9):355-359. doi: 10.1701/2745.27985.
3
Why are peer reviewers thinning out, and are there ways to enrich the peer pool?
J Sci Med Sport. 2023 Jul;26(7):336-337. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2023.06.006.
4
identifies gender disparities in scientific peer review.
Elife. 2023 Nov 3;12:RP90230. doi: 10.7554/eLife.90230.
5
How to review a scientific paper.
Asian J Psychiatr. 2014 Oct;11:124-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2014.08.007. Epub 2014 Aug 27.
6
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
7
Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at .
Int J Ther Massage Bodywork. 2021 Mar 1;14(1):1-3. eCollection 2021 Mar.
8
Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2014;42(3):305-14.
9
Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 8;5(4):e10072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010072.
10
Publishing peer review materials.
F1000Res. 2018 Oct 17;7:1655. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16460.1. eCollection 2018.
引用本文的文献
1
Fishing reviewing: A threat to research integrity and credibility.
World J Methodol. 2025 Sep 20;15(3):98795. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.98795.
2
The value of joint peer review between early career researchers and supervisors.
Trends Cell Biol. 2025 May;35(5):353-356. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2025.03.002. Epub 2025 Apr 3.
3
Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions.
Mater Horiz. 2024 Jul 1;11(13):3005-3010. doi: 10.1039/d3mh01781h.
4
Of editorial processes, AI models, and medical literature: the Magnetic Resonance Audiometry experiment.
Eur Radiol. 2024 Sep;34(9):5868-5872. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10668-w. Epub 2024 Mar 7.
5
The importance of debunking constructions.
Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2023 Feb;40(1):3-5. doi: 10.1177/14550725221150346. Epub 2023 Jan 25.
本文引用的文献
1
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 28;11(11):MR000056. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000056.pub2.
2
A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
BMC Med. 2019 Jun 20;17(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0.
3
Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals.
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 5;8(9):e023357. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023357.
4
Recognition for Reviewers: PUBLONS!
J Transcult Nurs. 2018 May;29(3):221. doi: 10.1177/1043659618764157. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
5
[The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Sep;108(9):355-359. doi: 10.1701/2745.27985.
6
Peer review: acknowledging its value and recognising the reviewers.
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Dec;66(653):629-630. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X688285.
7
Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.
Front Neurosci. 2015 May 27;9:169. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169. eCollection 2015.
8
Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):23-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
9
What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):231-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.231.
Zotero 插件