Abstract
The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, M. (2001). Peer review culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 193–204.
Baldwin, W., & Seto, B. (1997). Peer review: Selecting the best science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 11–17.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245.
Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. London, UK: Butterworths.
Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Oleinik, A. (2014). Conflict(s) of interest in peer review: Its origins and possible solutions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 55–75.
Plunk, V. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342, 60–65.
Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247–258.
Spier, R. (2002a). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(1), 99–108.
Spier, R. (2002b). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358.
Vijh, A. K. (1996). Reflections on peer review practices in committees selecting laureates for prestigious awards and prizes: Some relevant and irrelevant criteria. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(4), 389–394.
Wilson, J. R. (2002). Responsible authorship and peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 155–174.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roohi, E., Mahian, O. Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 809–812 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5