blog

 

Both the public and budding researchers may often find themselves wondering: out of the 1.5 million research papers published every year, which ones are any good? How can I be sure that the findings held in these papers are reliable?

A large part of the answer to these questions is peer review, the process by which new scientific works are offered up to members of the expert community, who act as a quality filter to ensure that the piece in question is valid, novel and significant, before it is published for the wider research community to utilize and scrutinize.

Feeling keen to arm myself with the knowledge of how this vital system works, I took myself along to Glasgow Caledonian University on the 17^th of September this year, to attend ‘Peer Review – The Nuts and Bolts’, a workshop run by Sense About Science, a charity that aims to put science and evidence in the hands of the public. Sense About Science runs the Voice of Young Science programme, which encourages early career researchers to stand up for science and engage with the public.

The workshop started by sharing our opinions of peer review in small groups. We unanimously agreed it is an indispensable component of the scientific method, but there are some big questions on how it should be performed. Should it really fall down to volunteers? Would paid reviewers be preferable? How about ‘open forum’ peer review, where papers are hosted online and hundreds of reviewers can wade in to share their views?

A panel discussion with a range of experts followed. Malavika Legge, an experienced publisher at Portland Press, gave a broad overview of how the process works and how each publisher employs a different pipeline to conduct peer review. Reassuringly peer review is evolving with the times, for example electronic systems are used to pick reviewers and the balance of soundness vs novelty is being considered, ie should a journal publish repeats which match a previous finding? Things we suggested in our group discussion, like training, incentives and open feedback are already being pioneered in publishing houses.

Professor Martijn Steultjens, chair of the Peer Review College at GCU, offered an inspiring take on the peer review process, rallying researchers to take pride in ‘doing their bit’ to ensure the quality of scientific publishing. We learned some tricks of the trade, for example, ignore discussions and introductions and go straight to the heart of the issue: the methods. Professor Steultjens emphasised that if a paper is rejected, the reason lies in the methods. No amount of revisions can save a paper with incorrect methodology! We were all relieved to hear that a paper is never accepted on first submission; improvements can and will always be made.

Professor Sergio Della Sala gave a riveting talk on the benefits of pre-registration peer review, which could address the bias against publication of negative results. He proposed that scientists should clearly state their line of enquiry, with all experiments pre-planned, and sign a contract with a journal which legally obliges them to carry out the work, and the journal to publish the results. No matter what they may be.

We concluded the workshop by agreeing that peer review represents an invaluable quality standard by which scientific literature can be measured. I walked away feeling I could and should engage with the peer review process. I understand the strengths and weaknesses that exist within the system, and appreciate that if we are to improve on the way science publishing is done, then that task lies with the next generation of scientists.