8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

1/15

Physics 135 SSG

Module I, Week II

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

2/15

Process of evaluation by qualified individuals

Assess suitability for publication

Maintain standards of quality Provide credibility within a field

Individuals are often tenured faculty

A business generating $19 billion in revenue Scientific, Medical, & Technical (STM) disciplines

60% of this revenue comes from North America

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

3/15

Primary Source

Most scientific research papers

Reveal original experimental data Offer interpretations as conclusions

Secondary Source

Review Journals that provide Synthesis Highlight a fields advances and research trends

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

4/15

Fundamental Errors undermine Conclusions

Process is not designed to detect fraud

Reviewers do not have full access to the data set Plagiarism does exist

Reviewers do have access to full-text manuscripts

0.3% of NIH-funded scientists admitted faking data 1.4% of these scientists admit to plagiarism

4.7% admit to autoplagiarism (re-publishing data)

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

5/15

Slow Process due to massive Reviewer workload Abuse of Inside Information by Reviewers

Unpublished info used for personal/professional gain Impartial Review

Valid work is wrongfully rejected

Especially in narrow or interdisciplinary fields

Limited Expertise leads to Diversity of Opinion

Significance of an idea may never spread widely

Discussion

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

6/15

Hierarchical Journal Submission First submit a paper to Nature, then lower journals

Everyone does this, but its a waste of potential This time could be used for additional experiments

Obsessing over the Impact Factor # of times a paper is published within ~2 years

Used as a proxy for the prestige of a Journal Pursuit of truth before pursuit of glory

The duty of a society of scientists

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

7/15

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

8/15

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

9/15

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

10/15

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

11/15

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

12/15

Research critique - careful appraisal of the strengthsand weaknesses of the study

Intellectual research critique - is a careful, completeexamination of a study to judge its strengths,weaknesses, logical links, meaning and significance

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

13/15

1. Read and critique the entire study2. Examine organization and presentation a

good report is complete, concise, logicallyorganized, and free of excessive jargon3. Examine the significance of the problem and

its broader implications4. Identify strengths and weaknesses all

studies have both

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

14/15

5. Be objective, realistic, and balanced dont beoverly critical or flattering

6. Examine the authors inclusion of the studys

limitations and weaknesses were they objective?7. Provide rationale for your critique and sources

from current literature8.

Do you find errors of fact and interpretation?9. Is content repeated or duplicated? Could it bepresented better, or more condensed?

8/3/2019 Scholarly Peer Review

15/15

Failure to articulate the assumptions associatedwith the research

Failure to adequately describe data collection

process Failure to examine existing body of knowledge Failure to describe omissions in current

understandings Failure to identify implications of the study