|
 |
|
EDITORIAL |
|
|
|
| Year : 2017 | Volume
: 35
| Issue : 2 | Page : 101 |
| |
Reconnoitring the peer review process…
Sudhindra Baliga
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K. D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, India
| Date of Web Publication | 10-May-2017 |
Correspondence Address:
Sudhindra Baliga
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, K. D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_150_17
How to cite this article:
Baliga S. Reconnoitring the peer review process…. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35:101 |
(Science is the eye of all)
Health science research provides deep discernments into the essential and effectual means for providing health care in all spheres. Journals, by far, are the most common way to communicate this research for further benefit. Nonetheless, shortcomings in the peer review, an imperative step in journal publishing, does impede the appropriate dissemination of knowledge.
The peer review process has existed for more than 150 years, to ensure that the rigorous standards of the scientific process are not compromised, allowing future research to build upon a solid foundation. Peer review is used by almost all scientific journals and is based on guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Journal decision-making process is an extensive procedure. Once a paper is submitted to a journal, the editor appraises the manuscript for initial editorial review based on journals scope and guidelines. Few manuscripts which do not conform to the journals prerequisites in editorial review are rejected without peer review. Only after clearing the editorial review, the manuscript is sent for peer reviewed which may be single blind or double blind. Reviewers undertake reading and evaluation of manuscripts based on the journal prerequisites and assess the quality, completeness, and precision of the paper. This assessment with suggestions on improvements is provided as a feedback to the editor, and recommendations are made whether to accept, reject, or suggest changes in the article. Decisively, journal editor contemplates the peer reviewers' reports and makes the final assessment. It is usual for peer reviewers to give contradictory opinions on the same manuscript. In these cases, the journal editor may choose to send the paper to a third reviewer before arriving at a decision. COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all these aspects of publication ethics.
Approximately 400 articles are received by JISPPD annually. Given the large volume of manuscript submissions, a policy of screening papers before sending them for full peer review is followed. Providing a concrete review takes time and verve, and referees receive no financial compensation for their effort. Although the peer review process is unlikely to change the basic nature of a given submission, in many cases the authors may clarify views and/or revise the methods in response to reviewer's requests. Precisely, comments provided by reviewers lead to overall enhancements in the manuscript pertaining to clarity and literature review. This can only happen when expert reviewers take time to participate in the peer review process and evaluate submissions sincerely.
I wish this quality control mechanism in the form of peer review for JISPPD continues to be transparent, sincere, and rewarding for the authors as well as readers. The peer review process stands out as fundamental to journal progress and influences more than just science.
|
