Editorial pubs.acs.org/JPCL
Ten Reasons Why Peer Review Makes Sense
T
he majority of journals today rely on prepublication peer review for publishing their scientific articles. In the peer review process, editors, reviewers, and authors cooperatively work together to ensure the quality of scientific research before it is published. The reviewers, who often are practicing scientists, volunteer their services to comment on the papers of others. This century-old practice has enabled the scientific community to thrive, maintain integrity, and make significant new research advances.1,2 Of course, the peer review process could increase the time needed to publish new results; this, however, is a small price to pay in order to have research findings validated by impartial experts.
6.
7. 8.
In the peer review process, editors, reviewers, and authors cooperatively work together to ensure the quality of scientific research before it is published.
9. 10.
Given the recent exponential growth of publications in Mega journals and the introduction of new journals by different publishers, the prepublication peer review system today is under scrutiny.2 Many recent blogs on web media and opinion pages in the journals question the significance of this peer review system in the modern era and suggest postpublication review as an alternate possibility (see, for example, references 4−6). Although this notion may seem attractive in certain areas, postpublication peer review does not incorporate a built in validity check of scientific claims or accuracy of methods and, thus, leaves the readers to form their own opinion of the published work. Some of the benefits of the prepublication peer review process and why this process serves as one of the pillars of scientific publication are highlighted below. 1. Because of authors’ built in respect for (or should we say fear of?) the review process, they take extra care in preparing their manuscripts and strive to compose a manuscript ready for publication. 2. The figures and discussion are carefully presented so that a reviewer, whether he/she is an expert or a general reader, can understand the scope and importance of the study. This in turn leads to wider appreciation of the work from other readers. 3. It provides an anonymous way to obtain feedback from the peers. (Reviewers do not shy away from identifying mistakes or questioning the validity of the arguments.) 4. A peer reviewed paper carries an approval or validation of scientific results. Peer review confirms the quality of the science being presented in the paper. (Note: Retractions based on fraudulent practice, ethical misconduct, or wrong interpretations, are still only a tiny fraction of published work.) 5. Peer reviewers are practicing scientists who can evaluate the methods and data analysis carefully. They provide © 2015 American Chemical Society
valuable feedback, point out mistakes, and make constructive suggestions to further strengthen the manuscript. The reviews provide a good feedback on the new scientific results and initiate discussions within the research group. This process in turn helps to train the next generation of scientists. (Comments from experienced researchers can serve as an educational tool for younger scientists.) Peer reviews assist editors in evaluating the scientific merit and make the final decision. When the author addresses reviewers’ concerns or comments, the revised manuscript becomes scientifically stronger than the original version. This in turn raises the overall impact of published material. Journals maintain their leadership status in their respective fields as a result of the scientifically sound papers published in their journals. Peer review, a community-wide effort to maintain scientific integrity in publications, is and will remain an important and integral part of the scientific culture.
We, the editors of JPCL, as well as editors of other ACS journals are practicing scientists, engaging in research with students and other researchers.
We, the editors of JPCL, as well as editors of other ACS journals are practicing scientists, engaging in research with students and other researchers. We have first-hand experience of the publication process, acting as authors and reviewers. We recognize the efforts taken by our authors to address reviewers’ comments and present new findings in an effective way. Our experience in these different roles provides us the unique opportunity to appreciate the efforts of reviewers who raise valid concerns and provide constructive suggestions. We regularly see the benefit of the peer review process in maintaining a high scientific standard for our journals. Indeed, there are numerous examples where reviewer comments have played a crucial role, either in identifying errors in a manuscript or in suggesting ideas for improving manuscript content that proved to be important. We are grateful for the volunteer service provided by our reviewers. Their quick and thorough reviews have enabled us to expedite the publication of new scientific advances and made JPCL a leading journal in the field. JPCL’s streamlined editorial process allows us to publish peer reviewed papers with an average publication time ∼35 days (from submission to publication with pagination). We hope the scientific communPublished: July 2, 2015 2588
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b01280 J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 2588−2589
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters
Editorial
ity will see the benefits of the prepublication peer review process and continue to support the endeavor.
We regularly see the benefit of the peer review process in maintaining a high scientific standard for our journals. Prashant V. Kamat, Deputy Editor University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States
George C. Schatz, Editor-in-Chief
■
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Meadows, A. Peer Review Recognition Wanted!; Scholarly Kitchen, 2015. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/01/08/peerreview-recognition-wanted/ (accessed May 2015). (2) Jennings, C. Quality and Value: The True Purpose of Peer Review. Nature 2006, DOI: 10.1038/nature05032. (3) Buriak, J. M. Mega-Journals and Peer Review: Can Quality and Standards Survive? Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 2243−2243 DOI: 10.1021/ acs.chemmater.5b01142. (4) Richard, B. Primack, R. B.; Arceiz, A. C.; Koh, L. P. Is Peer Review Just a Crapshoot? How do Reviewer Recommendations Influence Ed. Decisions? And are Chinese Authors Treated Fairly?; Elsevier Connect: Amsterdam, 2015. http://www.elsevier.com/connect/is-peer-reviewjust-a-crapshoot (accessed May 2015). (5) Stoye, E. Post Publication Peer Review Comes of Age; Chemistry World: London, U.K., 2015. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/ 2015/01/post-publication-peer-review-stap-comes-age (accessed May 2015). (6) Coudert, F.-X. Post-Publication Peer Review is a Reality, so What should the Rules be?; Nature Chemistry, The Sceptical Chymist: London, U.K., 2015. http://blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/ 2015/04/blogroll-comment-etiquette.html (accessed May 2015).
2589
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b01280 J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 2588−2589
