The positives

by Jennifer Eve Appleton

Peer review is definitely not flawless as previous posts can demonstrate; it does however enable future readers to make a judgment on the quality and virtue of the research. Other positives are outlined below:

1) A variety of opinions can be brought to light during peer review, abandoning any personal biases and withstanding ideas from the equation.

2) Peer review prevents inferior science from gaining a place in journals with experts in corresponding fields generally being the reviewer. Experts that will be familiar with current research making the rejection of duplicate and plagiarized work easier to spot.

3) With the rejection of poor work from the publishing pipeline money and time is saved, particularly in the case of plagiarism.

“Without referees, a journal would have to employ a team of editors with expertise in every field, and this would make the cost of the production prohibitive.” Marin Shuttleworth

4) The journals which request the expertise of peer reviewers are generally well established in scientific publishing with influential reputations, this encourages the top academics to submit their work.

5) The reviewers are leading academics and scientists in their field, peer review brings current research into the limelight

6) In the academic world peer review is used for applications of grants, and University textbooks. Peer reviewing is not only used for journals but for grant applications and University textbooks. This guarantees that money is allocated to just the viable proposals for research.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: