[ad_1]
Peer review is a process where experts in a field review a proposed publication for errors and conformity to standards. It is commonly used in science and can be anonymous. Peer-reviewed publications are seen as more credible, but the process can be slow and difficult to find qualified reviewers. There are four possible outcomes: unreserved acceptance, acceptance with caveats, rejection with encouragement to resubmit, or rejection with a comment.
Peer review is a process in which a proposed publication is reviewed by people who are knowledgeable in the field covered by the publication. These experts review the piece for errors and problems, determining whether or not the piece should be accepted for publication, award money, prizes, and other benefits. This process occurs most commonly in the sciences, where peer review is a cornerstone, although academics in fields such as history may also subject their work to a similar process.
This process is designed to catch errors, glitches and problems with pieces their authors may have missed. It assumes that everyone makes mistakes, sometimes fundamental ones, and that the benefit of a second pair of eyes can be extremely helpful. Peer review is also used to ensure that pieces conform to generally accepted views and standards in the community, although it is not used to detect fraud, plagiarism, and other acts of dishonesty on the part of the author, with the review committee assumes that the author’s intentions are honorable.
In many cases, peer review is anonymous, meaning that when a piece is submitted, the author has no control over who is on the review panel, and is not provided with the names of people in the panel. Sometimes, even the author’s identity is obscured, to avoid bias from the jury. Open review, in which the names of all parties involved are freely exchanged, has become increasingly popular.
Peer-reviewed publications tend to be seen as more reputable and credible, both because they have been reviewed for errors and because submission to peer review suggests that an author welcomes insights and criticisms from the community. Many scientific journals and publications only accept pieces that have been peer-reviewed, and some maintain their own panel reviewers.
The major flaw with this system is that it tends to be slow and can delay publication for months or years, even when the information is of great interest or critical importance. It can also be difficult to find qualified reviewers, especially for work in esoteric, obscure, or interdisciplinary fields. If a publication is written by the leading specialist in a very narrow field, for example, it can be difficult to find someone who is appropriate for peer review, let alone a group of readers who can peruse and discuss the piece.
When a presentation is peer reviewed, there are usually four possible outcomes. The first and best is an unreserved acceptance, meaning that the piece is deemed more or less perfect. The second is an acceptance with caveats, meaning that the author must make revisions for the piece to be accepted. Next is a rejection with an encouragement to review and resubmit, suggesting that the work has merit, but the piece was too flawed to be considered for publication. Finally, a piece can simply be rejected with a comment.
[ad_2]