» Articles » PMID: 38327220

An Overview of the Peer Review Process in Biomedical Sciences

Overview
Date 2024 Feb 8
PMID 38327220
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks.

Conclusion: The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts.

Citing Articles

Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.

Forero D, Glatt S, Oermann M BMC Res Notes. 2025; 18(1):17.

PMID: 39819633 PMC: 11740453. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-024-07060-8.

References
1.
Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K . Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide. EJIFCC. 2016; 25(3):227-43. PMC: 4975196. View

2.
Pierie J, Walvoort H, Overbeke A . Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet. 1996; 348(9040):1480-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)05016-7. View

3.
Burnham J . The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA. 1990; 263(10):1323-9. View

4.
Kronick D . Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990; 263(10):1321-2. View

5.
DerSimonian R, Charette L, McPeek B, Mosteller F . Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1982; 306(22):1332-7. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198206033062204. View