PeerReviews

Peer review is an evaluative process in which experts in a relevant field assess a manuscript, proposal, or scholarly output before it is published or funded. The primary aims are to validate results, assess significance and originality, and improve the clarity, methodology, and overall quality of the work. Peer reviews are typically conducted by independent scholars who have no direct involvement with the work being evaluated.

The process generally begins with submission to a journal, conference, or funding body, followed by an initial editorial screening. If the work passes this stage, it is sent to two or more reviewers who examine aspects such as study design, data analysis, interpretation, ethical considerations, and relevance to the field. Review formats vary: single-blind review keeps the authors’ identities hidden from reviewers, double-blind hides both sides, and open peer review may disclose identities or publish review reports. Based on the reviews, editors issue a decision that can be acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Authors may revise the manuscript and resubmit, potentially undergoing further rounds of review.

Variants of the system include open peer review, where reviewer reports and sometimes identities are public, and post-publication review, in which dissemination occurs before formal gatekeeping and critiques continue online. Peer review also occurs in conferences, grant proposals, and some preprint ecosystems, though the rigor and timelines differ.

Benefits of peer review include quality control, improvement of scholarly standards, and the detection of errors or ethical concerns. Limitations include potential biases, delays, variability in reviewer quality, and the risk of stifling novelty. Ethics guidelines emphasize confidentiality, conflict-of-interest management, and the prohibition of using unpublished ideas for personal gain, with several checks such as plagiarism screening and reviewer training to address these challenges.