Volume 15, Issue 48 (2023)                   JMED 2023, 15(48): 78-79 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shomoossi N, Shomoossi Z, Rad M. Stressing the need for the pool of trained peer reviewers vs. authors’ suggested reviewers. JMED 2023; 15 (48) :78-79
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-1824-en.html
Stressing the need for the pool of trained peer reviewers vs. authors’ suggested reviewers
Nematullah Shomoossi1 , Zahra Shomoossi2 , Mostafa Rad *3
1- Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences
2- Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
3- Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences , mostafarad633@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (1605 Views)
This letter comes to you in the hope of emphasizing how important trained peer reviewers are for the scientific workflow of academic journals. Normally, between 1 and 3 independent reviewers are required to peer-review a single manuscript. Most papers in Elsevier, for instance, receive feedback from three peer reviewers; shorter papers, e.g. brief reports or short communications, may emerge in journals only by the approval of two peer reviewers. In certain cases, editors in chief may choose to review some journal submissions (such as commentaries and book reviews) themselves, and do without external peer reviewers. This is however considered as a subjective decision making, which may even lead to desk rejection in certain cases
Keywords: Peer reviewers, Trained, Suggested
Full-Text [PDF 756 kb]   (1199 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (796 Views)  
Article Type : Editorial | Subject: Medical Sciences
Received: 2023/01/6 | Accepted: 2023/01/16 | Published: 2023/02/28
References
1. Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2007;1;61(1):9-12. [DOI]
2. Zarbin M. The Elusive Nature of Truth in Scientific Studies and the Importance of Peer Review. Translational Vision Science & Technology. 2018 1;7(2):7-. [DOI]
3. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(1):2-17. [DOI]
4. Tennant JP. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology letters. 2018;365(19):fny204. [DOI]
5. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Research integrity and peer review. 2020;5(1):1-4. [DOI]
6. Janodia MD. Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: Problems and Solutions. Manipal Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2017 1;3(1):1-3. [Article]
7. Koushan M, Pejhan A, Shomoossi N, Shomoossi A. Ethical Considerations in Publishing Medical Articles in Iranian Journals. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis. 2014; 31 (2): 105–111. [DOI]
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.