Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

  • Opinion
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, M. (2001). Peer review culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, W., & Seto, B. (1997). Peer review: Selecting the best science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. London, UK: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleinik, A. (2014). Conflict(s) of interest in peer review: Its origins and possible solutions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plunk, V. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342, 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. (2002a). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(1), 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R. (2002b). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vijh, A. K. (1996). Reflections on peer review practices in committees selecting laureates for prestigious awards and prizes: Some relevant and irrelevant criteria. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(4), 389–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. R. (2002). Responsible authorship and peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Young Researchers and Elite Club, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

    Ehsan Roohi & Omid Mahian

Authors
  1. Ehsan Roohi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omid Mahian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omid Mahian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roohi, E., Mahian, O. Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 809–812 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9549-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation