This is an important process to make sure that research is critically reviewed by other experts in the field before it gets published. The current peer review system has come a long way from where it started. It recently gained anonymity and structure, particularly after World War II. Nowadays, tens of millions of different manuscripts are peer reviewed each year and this figure is climbing fast.
During the peer review process, a manuscript is typically sent to two or three reviewers who possess the relevant expertise. These reviewers evaluate the work and provide feedback to the journal editors, who ultimately decide whether to publish the research. Many of the reviewers, in a sense, are their own story. Roughly 75% of them are never awarded any certificates or compensated for their work.
The Evolution of Peer Review
Peer review’s current form has a long, storied history dating back centuries. The historical approach came into its own in the decades following World War II. This moment in history was a pivotal inflection point where the way scientific research was shared and peer-reviewed changed dramatically. With the advent of the journal, editors started to handle the peer review process in a more organized manner, making sure that any manuscripts submitted were thoroughly reviewed.
Unfortunately, as the scientific research grew, so did the peer review system. Now, hundreds of thousands of research papers pass through this gauntlet annually. With the growing tide of submissions, there was anxiety that speed would mean a lack of thoroughness or consistency in the review process. Many researchers express frustration with delays, often attributing them to “Reviewer 2,” a term used to describe the reviewer who tends to be overly critical or unhelpful.
Even in the face of these setbacks, an international survey of researchers found that a resounding majority continue to have confidence in peer-reviewed science. This abdication of trust highlights how important the peer review process is in upholding the integrity of the published research.
The Challenges Within Peer Review
Though peer review serves a role to vet research ahead of publication, it has notable and inherent shortcomings. In recent years, a concerning trend has emerged: an increasing number of published papers have been retracted due to issues such as plagiarism or fabricated results. This begs some profound questions about how well the entire peer review process is working in identifying these errors or potential misconduct.
Unlike other imperfect studies that slip through the cracks of peer review, these can do actual, tangible harm, particularly in public health. The ramifications of spreading false or misleading information can pose direct threats to patient care and inform public health policy. The burden this places on reviewers and editors is enormous.
Even with these caveats, it is hard to erode the faith in peer-reviewed literature that many medical researchers have. To be sure, they are all aware of how slow and uneven a process it can be. It’s absolutely necessary to avoid compromising the quality and reliability of our scientific research.
The Future of Peer Review
With the ever-changing world of scientific publishing comes the evolution of the peer review process. With over two million research papers being submitted every year, journals are beginning to turn to new models to become more efficient and effective. Others have started experimenting with open peer review, which makes the names of reviewers public. Meanwhile, others are exploring ways to cooperate to save time and resources while conducting the evaluations.
There are new expectations on the importance of acknowledging and incentivizing the work of reviewers. Other journals have begun implementing systems to formally credit reviewers. In addition, they are providing financial incentives to increase engagement with the peer review process.