Peer review: from recognition to improved practices
Author(s) -
Pedro Cintas
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
fems microbiology letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1574-6968
pISSN - 0378-1097
DOI - 10.1093/femsle/fnw115
Subject(s) - clarity , preprint , publishing , pillar , task (project management) , scientific publishing , peer review , quality (philosophy) , open peer review , key (lock) , technical peer review , redaction , psychology , medical education , engineering ethics , internet privacy , computer science , political science , medicine , world wide web , history , engineering , computer security , law , philosophy , systems engineering , chemistry , structural engineering , biology , biochemistry , epistemology , botany , plant biology , archaeology
Scientific publishing has experienced profound changes in recent years, such as the advent of open-access journals, the increasing use of preprint archives or post-publication blogs, to name a few. One pillar still remains: peer review as a key ingredient that, in most cases, contributes to clarity and quality, often detecting errors and misinterpretations. Unfortunately, peer review is poorly recognized and good reviewers are rather a 'rare avis'. Even worse, this necessary task in science is generally overlooked in curricula and post-graduate education. Some considerations should help us all to ameliorate greatly our understanding and duties.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom