Lisa Tereshko, PhD, BCBA-D and Videsha Marya, PhD, BCBA-D
Endicott College
Peer review is what it sounds like – other researchers (peers) evaluate the quality of an article submitted for publication (review). It is akin to buying a certified used car that has been inspected thoroughly by experts versus from an owner where you only have their word that the car is reliable. In this article, we break down the process of peer review to give readers an insight into the evaluation of the research. The peer review process for journals dates back to the 1700s and has been a fundamental component of behavioral science research for almost a century (Lovejoy et al., 2011). To increase the credibility of findings within the scientific community, journals will have authors participate in the peer review process prior to publication. Many journals have implemented the peer review process to increase the quality assurance of submissions, ensure the legitimacy of the research, and to regulate the scientific community as a whole.
Photographed by Keira Burton (pexels.com)
Prior to sharing information about the process itself, it is important to discuss the many benefits of peer review. The peer review process aids the scientific community by ensuring an increase in quality control of manuscripts accepted for publication and a reduction in faulty research blurring the readership’s conclusions. Furthermore, the peer review process can benefit the authors too. It can help shape the authors’ writing and increase their knowledge surrounding scientific experimental rigor. Finally, the peer review process can increase the confidence of the authors and readers, ensuring that the studies are published within a credible journal that has high respect for scientific rigor (Tumin & Tobias, 2019).
The peer review process generally involves the following parties: (a) one or more author(s), (b) an Editor-in-Chief (also called an Action Editor), (c) an Associate Editor, and (d) a team of reviewers. If there is more than one author of the article, one of the authors is selected by the team of authors to be the corresponding or submitting author. This individual is the primary person who submits to the journal and manages all correspondence related to the article.
The peer review process begins once authors submit their manuscript for publication in a journal (see Figure 1). First, the manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal to determine if the manuscript aligns with the scope of the journal. Next, if appropriate for the scope of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal will assign the work to an Associate Editor who invites other professionals to review the manuscript. Those professionals, or the peer reviewers, assess the manuscript for scientific accuracy and rigor to determine if it is fit for publication. Finally, all reviews are sent back to the Associate Editor, who analyzes all the reviews along with their own independent review of the manuscript and makes a recommendation about the manuscript. Based on the journal policies, the Associate Editor makes one of four possible decisions: (a) accept the manuscript in its current form, (b) accept the manuscript contingent upon revisions made by the author(s), (c) reject the manuscript with an invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript contingent upon some significant revisions, or (d) reject the manuscript from the journal. In all options, the author(s) is/are provided with comments and suggestions about the manuscript.
The reviewed manuscript is then routed back to the author(s). If the article has been rejected, the author(s) may then choose to take the manuscript to a different journal. If the decision required revisions, then the author(s) are given a time frame in which to make the required revisions and submit it to the journal for further review. This process continues until the reviewers are satisfied with the manuscript. In some journals, the manuscript is routed to the Editor-in-Chief for their final decision. Once the manuscript is selected for acceptance, it then goes through the publication process of proofing which allows the author(s) a final review of their manuscript once the publisher transcribes it as it would appear in the journal.
Although the goal of the peer review process is to ensure the quality of scientific publications, there is still a risk of bias (Cengher & LeBlanc, 2023). To help reduce the risk of bias in the review and publication process, journals can implement a blind review. This can be done in two ways: double-blind and single-blind. A double-blind review occurs when the names and identities of the authors and reviewers are not made publicly available and a single-blind review occurs when the authors’ identities are publicly available but the reviewers’ identities are kept anonymous (Cengher & LeBlanc, 2023). Both of these types of peer reviews are common, but double-blind reviews are most desirable as this process increases the chances that the manuscript is solely judged on its scientific rigor instead of another variable such as professional status or affiliation of authors (Cengher & LeBlanc, 2023).
Although we hope that the detailed description of the process – coupled with the flowchart above – has been informative, perhaps the most important takeaway of this article is that peer review is a rigorous process that increases confidence in the quality of the research available. Though peer review can be time consuming, it is essential for reducing the dissemination of misinformation to researchers and consumers. Remember, good science, just like a quality used car, should be able to pass a thorough inspection with flying colors, and concerns, if any, should be discussed clearly and transparently.
References
Cengher, M., & LeBlanc, L. (2023). Reviewing manuscripts for behavior-analytic journals: A primer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 57(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.1034
Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 42(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x
Tumin, D., & Tobias, J. D. (2019). The peer review process. Saudi Journal of Anesthesia, 13, S52-S58. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18
Citation for this article:
Tereshko, L., & Marya, V. (2024). Science Corner: Understanding the review process of peer-reviewed articles. Science in Autism Treatment, 21(07).
Other Science Corner Articles:
- Role of replication in scientific validation
- Some cautions on the exclusive use of standardized assessments in recovery-oriented treatment
- Determining the effectiveness of treatments available to persons with autism – Part One
- ASD Intervention: How do we measure effectiveness?
- What is evidence-based practice and why should we care?
- The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example
- Treatment Integrity: Why it is important regardless of discipline
- “Verification” and the peer review process
Other ASAT Articles:
#EarlyCareerAndStudents #Faculty #Researchers #SavvyConsumer
