Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Letters to the Editor
7 (
2
); 330-331
doi:
10.4103/0976-3147.176183

Credit and visibility for peer reviewing: An overlooked aspect of scholarly publication

Address for correspondence: Dr. Vikas Menon, Department of Psychiatry, Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry - 605 006, India. E-mail: drvmenon@gmail.com
Licence

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher; therefore Scientific Scholar has no control over the quality or content of this article.

Sir,

Scholarly peer reviewers get limited recognition for performing, perhaps, the most important and time-tested quality control mechanism that we have today in the world of scientific publishing. An average peer reviewer may review several manuscripts a year depending on their repute and stand in the field. Hence, a considerable amount of time is spent in doing this critical activity with little tangible benefits to the peer reviewer apart from a sense of altruistic satisfaction for having contributed to scientific discourse.[1] With increasing emphasis on publications for career advancement and placements, naturally the requests to peer review articles have also shown a concurrent rise. This, often results in scientists actually turning down more requests for peer reviews that they accept due to a paucity of resources.[2] It is quite plausible that many of them may not be willing to review at all for new or low impact factor journals or do a very superficial job of reviewing for these journals but jump at the opportunity to review for reputed journals and carry out a more elaborate and rigorous intellectual review. This is an undesirable scenario and hampers the progress of journals apart from serving to maintain the wide disparity in standards of publishing.

In this scenario, appropriate credit and visibility are required to improve and motivate peer review activity. Recently, several networking sites such as Publons, PubPeer, and Faculty of 1000 have been launched with the aim of providing platforms to showcase one's reviews as scientific output and enhance its visibility.[345] Some of them such as Publons go one step further and issue digital object identifiers for reviews rendering them citable and also allows one to record and verify the peer review output based on which reviewer scores are assigned. This can subsequently be mentioned when applying for research grants, faculty, or editorial positions. These initiatives are much needed to increase transparency, accountability, and credit for the peer reviewing process. In a way, it would also reduce an important shortcoming of the peer review process – The abuse of peer review as pointed out by Smith,[6] by making the review open to scrutiny. It is plausible that the ideas and insights provided by a reviewer of a scientific manuscript may serve to catalyze further and better-designed work in the area but all too often, the closed peer review process employed by major journals ensures that the reviewer comments never reach the larger academic community. Considering these potential benefits, the academia must take steps to acknowledge and reward the work of peer reviewers and provide better visibility to their contributions that will, doubtless, help in improving quality of reviews, researcher cross-talk, dissemination of ideas, and ultimately, faster advancement of science.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , . Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives. . Publishing Researching Consortium. 4. Available from: http://www.citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676 and rep=rep1 and type=pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”? Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3:39-53.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. . Publons.com. Publons. Available from: https://www.publons.com/
  4. . Pubpeer.com. PubPeer - Search Publications and Join the Conversation. Available from: https://www.pubeer.com/
  5. . F1000research.com. F1000Research - An Innovative Open Access Publishing Platform Offering Immediate Publication and Open Peer Review. Available from: http://www.f1000research.com/
  6. , . Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99:178-82.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections