Peer review: sacred cow or scientific necessity?

Article Outline

• Reference
• Copyright

As scientists, most of us have grown up revering peer review. Yet, it was not until recently that I understood the depths of its roots in the scientific community. Peer review became the standard after World War II. As, at that time, there was a dramatic increase in the number of scientific papers, peer review was set up as a way to help editors with their work and ensure scientific rigor. Engber (2005) traces the history of peer review to the 1700s, when the Royal Society of London's Committee on Papers was accorded the power to solicit expert opinions.

We all know that peer review is not perfect and that neither does review feedback given to authors make papers perfect or complete in all aspects. At its best, peer review helps editors and funders of scientific studies distinguish the excellent and the poor; peer reviewers search for and often find fatal flow in research. But the manuscripts and proposals in the middle may be best served by the comments that reviewers provide, often leading to much better study designs in the case of proposals and clearer explications of the research in the case of manuscripts.

Since its inception, the Applied Nursing Research (ANR) has relied on researcher–clinician teams to serve as peer reviewers for research reports. This has been consistent with the mission of the journal to bridge the gap between science and professional practice. Authors have commented on the helpful advice they have been given to more clearly delineate the applied dimensions of their research. Readers have most often commented about the relevance of the research to current practice. We are indebted to our large panel of researcher–clinician teams who have spent countless hours assisting us in delivering the most clinically relevant nursing research. In a review process designed to publish articles that are both scientifically rigorous and clinically relevant, we have expected our peer review teams to submit both independent and joint reviews. Through these reviews, the teams have made a stellar contribution to the quality of ANR manuscripts.

With close to two decades of experience and the knowledge gained from this team approach to peer review, we are introducing a modification in the process. Manuscripts will still be reviewed by both researchers and clinicians who are experts in the content areas, but they will not review as designated teams. At this time, we are not initiating other changes in the review process, such as a nonblinded review in which the reviewers' names are disclosed or an open review in which the scientific community at large is invited to comment on a prepublication manuscript. We believe that the minor change we are introducing will both improve our efficiency and maintain the highest review standards.

We are cognizant of the review debates and literature and will continue to monitor the activities and progress of other scientific journals and their peer review processes. As we go to press with this issue, reports from the 5th International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publications being held in Chicago in September 2005 should be available. Your input on this important issue is welcome; help us determine the scientific necessity of peer review.

Back to Article Outline

Reference 

1. Engber D. Quality control: The case against peer review. Accessed April 18, 2005 at www.slate.com
   • View In Article