peer review for books

George, T. (2022, November 25). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved February 27, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, what is your plagiarism score.

Peer Review

This week we are working asynchronously to share rough drafts for Project 1: Materialities of the Book .

Before midnight on Sunday, March 5 post your rough draft as a blog post, using the Materialities Drafts category. You can select an image at random from our media library as your featured image.

By midnight on Wednesday, March 8 , return to our course site to read and review 3 drafts (see assignments below). If you’re familiar with Hypothesis , I encourage you to leave line-level comments/edits and help your peers think about places that need closer attention, such as sentence fragments, clarity issues, or word choice. In addition to this, please answer the following questions with as much detail as possible, citing examples from the paper where possible.

Peer Review Assignments:

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.

25% Off eBooks • Shop Now

Publishing Open Access Books: OA Books Peer Review

<Back to Publishing Open Access Books FAQ's

Peer Review

Q. What is the peer-review procedure for Taylor & Francis Books Open Access titles?

Taylor & Francis is committed to the highest standards of peer-review in order to maintain our reputation for scholarly rigour and quality control and this is equally true for any Open Access book titles.

All Taylor & Francis Books Open Access titles will be sent out to multiple referees before there is any agreement to proceed with them. Contracts to publish will only be issued after satisfactory peer-review. The final manuscript may also be submitted to further refereeing either by a series editor or by an external reviewer.

To view more questions relating to peer review of Taylor & Francis books, visit our Author FAQ: Proposal Reviews

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn how to manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy . By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies.

The country you have selected will result in the following:

Product pricing will be adjusted to match the corresponding currency.

International Open Access, Peer-reviewed Platform

We provide a global open access platform for journals to promote the publication of high quality research in multiple fields of medicine and technology by promoting unrestricted access to our journal., doi (digital object identifier)- we provide doi to all published papers to facilitate higher citation and classification of articles. peertechz publisher id: 10.17352, e-books peer-review process.

Peertechz e-Books undergo rigorous peer-review process to authenticate research works in science, health and medicine before final publication. Peer-review process also helps in analyse whether the submitted e-Book maintains ethical standards and safeguards the truthful honest research works.

It is mandatory that all e-Books, prior to their publication, are subjected to peer-review. This is an essential step in the publication decision making process. All review reports are presented to an advisory board that ultimately decides on whether the book is suitable for publication.

Peertechz e-Books follow ‘Open’ Peer-Review process. Each e-Book chapters are send to reviewers who are experts in the scientific or technical domain of the e-Book. The e-Book editor(s) as well as author(s) should declare any ‘conflicts of interest’ at the time of e-Book submission. Before sending the e-Book/chapters to reviewer(s), we seek consent of potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to review. All correspondence with the reviewer is kept open. The reviewers are required to send their observations filled out in the customized review form. Essential, non-confidential information received from the reviewer is then communicated to the book author(s) who is in turn required to submit a point-wise reply to each of the reviewer’s comments. If required, the author(s) replies and the modified manuscript may be sent again to the original reviewer for a re-review.

e-Books advisory Board for a subject area will eventually reach a decision whether or not to publish a book based on the reviewer’s comments and recommendations. The Advisory Board will also assess the book’s excellence, originality and quality of the content.

Peertechz e-Books attaches great importance to pre-publication review and realizes the critical role that the reviewers play in the publication of accurate scientific literature. We deeply appreciate the efforts of all our reviewers.

Details of Peer-Review Advisory Board for the e-Books

Indexing/Archiving

Indexing and info

Editor-in-chief, global views, nih funded articles, articles by country, research articles, case reports, peertechz tweets, member information.

Peer techz Publications Google Reviews

Each step from submission to publication was handled efficiently. The review comments were accurate which increased the value of our revised manuscript. I will certainly publish more works with Peertechz. More

cantrella caralynn

It was found that each step in the submission and publishing process was handled efficiently. The reviewers were clearly experts in the field and our revised manuscript was dealt with value. More

Samantha Wyatt

The entire review and production process for the article has been handled with remarkable professionalism and efficiency. As the editor, I can appreciate the enormous organizational effort and discipline shown. More

MUSHTAQ CHALKOO

Tomorrow is a search of today and if we research,we add an another day,that is how the time pulls on and on.Science keeps on changing its facies and thus paradigm and makes our living interesting and awesome.The knowledge of science needs to be dissipated to the progeny for better living ahead and the way we do that is through scientific journals published by different publication houses.Being associated with peertechz publications has been a wonderful experience.i have enjoyed the true spirit of scientific spice serving the organisation as an editor.It is author friendly,and makes the publication process for you very easy taking care not to jeopardise the standards of true science.I would suggest the research scholars and young scientists to associate with this publication house ,submit your reseach to brighten your career ahead in science.let us keep up the spirit of spreading the true science to the world ahead. More

Dr Shivaji Jadhav

Wonderful ..process and indeed very good way in terms of communication and i recommend for publishing with this publishers...Great support. More

Search in Journals, Articles and more

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

How to Write a Peer Review

When you write a peer review for a manuscript, what should you include in your comments? What should you leave out? And how should the review be formatted?

This guide provides quick tips for writing and organizing your reviewer report.

Review Outline

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized.

Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Here’s how your outline might look:

1. Summary of the research and your overall impression

In your own words, summarize what the manuscript claims to report. This shows the editor how you interpreted the manuscript and will highlight any major differences in perspective between you and the other reviewers. Give an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. Think about this as your “take-home” message for the editors. End this section with your recommended course of action.

2. Discussion of specific areas for improvement

It’s helpful to divide this section into two parts: one for major issues and one for minor issues. Within each section, you can talk about the biggest issues first or go systematically figure-by-figure or claim-by-claim. Number each item so that your points are easy to follow (this will also make it easier for the authors to respond to each point). Refer to specific lines, pages, sections, or figure and table numbers so the authors (and editors) know exactly what you’re talking about.

Major vs. minor issues

What’s the difference between a major and minor issue? Major issues should consist of the essential points the authors need to address before the manuscript can proceed. Make sure you focus on what is fundamental for the current study . In other words, it’s not helpful to recommend additional work that would be considered the “next step” in the study. Minor issues are still important but typically will not affect the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Here are some examples of what would might go in the “minor” category:

3. Any other points

Confidential comments for the editors.

Some journals have a space for reviewers to enter confidential comments about the manuscript. Use this space to mention concerns about the submission that you’d want the editors to consider before sharing your feedback with the authors, such as concerns about ethical guidelines or language quality. Any serious issues should be raised directly and immediately with the journal as well.

This section is also where you will disclose any potentially competing interests, and mention whether you’re willing to look at a revised version of the manuscript.

Do not use this space to critique the manuscript, since comments entered here will not be passed along to the authors. If you’re not sure what should go in the confidential comments, read the reviewer instructions or check with the journal first before submitting your review. If you are reviewing for a journal that does not offer a space for confidential comments, consider writing to the editorial office directly with your concerns.

Get this outline in a template

Giving Feedback

Giving feedback is hard. Giving effective feedback can be even more challenging. Remember that your ultimate goal is to discuss what the authors would need to do in order to qualify for publication. The point is not to nitpick every piece of the manuscript. Your focus should be on providing constructive and critical feedback that the authors can use to improve their study.

If you’ve ever had your own work reviewed, you already know that it’s not always easy to receive feedback. Follow the golden rule: Write the type of review you’d want to receive if you were the author. Even if you decide not to identify yourself in the review, you should write comments that you would be comfortable signing your name to.

In your comments, use phrases like “ the authors’ discussion of X” instead of “ your discussion of X .” This will depersonalize the feedback and keep the focus on the manuscript instead of the authors.

General guidelines for effective feedback

Don’t

Before and After: Sample Reviewer Comments

Keeping in mind the guidelines above, how do you put your thoughts into words? Here are some sample “before” and “after” reviewer comments

✗ Before

“The authors appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t think they have read any of the literature on this topic.”

✓ After

“The study fails to address how the findings relate to previous research in this area. The authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion to reference the related literature, especially recently published work such as Darwin et al.”

“The writing is so bad, it is practically unreadable. I could barely bring myself to finish it.”

“While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. I advise the authors work with a writing coach or copyeditor to improve the flow and readability of the text.”

“It’s obvious that this type of experiment should have been included. I have no idea why the authors didn’t use it. This is a big mistake.”

“The authors are off to a good start, however, this study requires additional experiments, particularly [type of experiment]. Alternatively, the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies their choice of methods.”

Suggested Language for Tricky Situations

You might find yourself in a situation where you’re not sure how to explain the problem or provide feedback in a constructive and respectful way. Here is some suggested language for common issues you might experience.

What you think : The manuscript is fatally flawed. What you could say: “The study does not appear to be sound” or “the authors have missed something crucial”.

What you think : You don’t completely understand the manuscript. What you could say : “The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion…”

What you think : The technical details don’t make sense. What you could say : “The technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.”

What you think: The writing is terrible. What you could say : “The authors should revise the language to improve readability.”

What you think : The authors have over-interpreted the findings. What you could say : “The authors aim to demonstrate [XYZ], however, the data does not fully support this conclusion. Specifically…”

What does a good review look like?

Check out the peer review examples at F1000 Research to see how other reviewers write up their reports and give constructive feedback to authors.

Time to Submit the Review!

Be sure you turn in your report on time. Need an extension? Tell the journal so that they know what to expect. If you need a lot of extra time, the journal might need to contact other reviewers or notify the author about the delay.

Tip: Building a relationship with an editor

You’ll be more likely to be asked to review again if you provide high-quality feedback and if you turn in the review on time. Especially if it’s your first review for a journal, it’s important to show that you are reliable. Prove yourself once and you’ll get asked to review again!

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your…

Ensure appropriateness and rigor, avoid flexibility and above all never manipulate results In many fields, a statistical analysis forms the heart of…

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Peer Reviewing

Peer Review Process at IntechOpen Explained

Peer Review

Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published. Peer review helps the publisher decide whether the submitted work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or is rejected. For a flowchart description of the peer review process at IntechOpen please see below.

IntechOpen is dedicated to publishing high-quality content and we are a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics ( COPE ), all referees and Editors are instructed to review submissions in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer reviewers .

There is a wealth of further information regarding peer review available and we would encourage our editors, authors, and reviewers to educate themselves further regarding this process. A clearer understanding of the peer review process can only lead to greater transparency in the benefits that peer review affords, maintain high standards of peer review, and also allows reviewers and authors to participate in the peer review process. For more information on the peer review process we recommend the following:

Peer-Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense About Science (SAS)

Peer-Review: An Introduction and Guide , PRC

Alan Meier's Guidelines for Peer-Review of Technical Papers

Publons Peer Reviewer Academy

The Peer Review Process at IntechOpen

Edited volumes.

At IntechOpen, the book catalog (topics) was first developed by IntechOpen's Senior Content Specialists - STM (Internal staff). Afterward, Commissioning Editors (Internal staff) contact recognized experts in their respective fields and invite them to become Academic Editors (External Editors) for each planned book. Once the Academic Editor (External Editor) has been appointed after being carefully selected by the Commissioning Editor (Internal staff) and the concept for the book is finalized (scope, topics, TOC), the book is open for submissions. Book chapter manuscripts are submitted as contributions to edited volumes. At this stage the manuscript submission and processing is supported by a Manuscript tracking system and the publishing process is managed by Author Service Managers (Internal Handling Editor), whose responsibilities include monitoring and facilitating all publishing activities for Authors, Academic Editors, co-editors, reviewers, production specialists. From submission to peer review, production, copyediting, and until final publication, Author Service Managers (Internal Handling Editors) ensure a simple and efficient publishing process. Author Service Managers (Internal Handling Editors) do not interfere with Academic Editors' (External Editors') decision-making processes. Book chapter manuscripts go through a two-step review process: chapter proposal review and full chapter review. Prior to submitting a full chapter, Prospective Authors are first asked to submit a chapter proposal in the form of an abstract which is then assessed by the Academic Editor (External Editor) for its suitability in terms of the overall scope and direction of the book. Chapter proposals should contain a tentative title, keywords, a short topic description of the proposed chapter (100 - 150 words), and the names of all contributing authors and their corresponding affiliations. At this point, the submitted chapter proposal will be either rejected (not scientifically sound or out of scope) or deemed suitable for inclusion by the Academic Editor (External Editor). If a chapter proposal is deemed suitable by the Academic Editor (External Editor), the Authors are informed by the Author Service Managers (Internal Handling Editor) to submit a fully drafted manuscript. The full chapter manuscript is then automatically subject to a plagiarism check via Ithenticate prior to being passed to the Academic Editor (External Editor) who performs the peer review. Once the peer review has been completed, the Academic Editor (External Editor) communicates (via Manuscript Tracking System) their decision to the Author Service Manager (Internal Handling Editor), who then informs the Authors of their decision. Should the Academic Editor (External Editor) wish to contribute a chapter, the peer review process for their chapter is arranged by the Author Service Manager (Internal Handling Editor). Academic Editors' chapters undergo external double-blind peer-review – the result is a fully peer-reviewed book.

Review outcomes are typically accepted, revision required (major or minor), or rejected. During the review process, the Academic Editor(s) (External Editor) suggest rounds of revision and authors work on improving their chapters. Resubmitted manuscripts are automatically subject to a plagiarism check via Ithenticate prior to being passed to the Academic Editor (External Editor). Chapters that do not fall within the Scope and Topics of the book are scientifically not sound, are incomplete, or of marginal interest to the field are rejected. Authors typically receive their peer review results within 30 days of the submission date.

Once a chapter is accepted for publication, the work is published individually via Online First, after review, and before the entire book is ready for publication. Once all chapters selected for inclusion in the book have been approved for publication, the book is ready for production, and then publication. Please note that the Open Access Publication fee is payable only after the full chapter manuscript has been accepted following peer review.

The independently appointed Academic Editor (External Editor) manages the peer review and decision-making process. The Author Service Manager (Internal Handling Editor) has a more hands-on role in the workflow and is responsible for the coordination of the publishing process. IntechOpen's Author Acquisition Managers, supported by Senior Content Specialists - STM (Internal staff), following the concept development of the book carried on by the Academic Editor (External Editor), are in charge of author acquisition. As a result, author acquisition and manuscript review are completely independent and unassociated. This distinction between Internal staff/Internal Handling Editor and External Editor roles (summarised below) ensures a fully robust and objective peer review process.

Monographs (long form and short form Compacts) are subject to blind peer review to ensure that they comply with accepted scientific and ethical requirements. There is a two-steps process: each proposal, and if accepted, each monograph is submitted to a plagiarism check by the Author Service Manager (Internal Handling Editor), prior to peer review. The Author Service Manager (Internal Handling Editor) selects independent external reviewers for monographs who volunteer their time and expertise to review the proposal and the final manuscript under a blind peer review. Please note that the Open Access Publication Fee is payable only after the manuscript has been accepted by the Internal Handling Editor following peer review.

Conference proceedings

To ensure that Conference proceedings published with IntechOpen contain the highest caliber of work possible, editors are required to adopt a thorough peer review process. Conference organizers and editors are to choose reviewers who are qualified experts within their fields and conduct all reviews according to standard requirements of an ethical review process. All submitted conference proceedings papers will be checked in iThenticate for plagiarism. The publisher also reviews all the submitted review reports. Only after this is completed does the manuscript enter the production phase.

Review for Journals

Authors may file an appeal if they suspect that their manuscript was improperly reviewed. Appeals should be addressed to your dedicated Author Service Manager or to [email protected] .

Are books peer reviewed?

" Peer review " is the editorial process that scholarly articles go through before they are published in a journal. Since not all books go through the same editorial process before publication, most aren't peer reviewed. They can be still be good scholarly sources , though.

Can't find what you're looking for? Contact us.

Are books peer reviewed? If so, how can I tell or how can I find them?

The process of peer review generally applies to journal articles, but it is possible for a book to be peer reviewed as well. Although many books go through some sort of editorial or review process, there is not an easy method for determining whether a book is peer reviewed. One method for locating peer-reviewed books is to take a look at book publications from university presses . Books published by university presses almost always go through a process of peer review. Books from university presses are typically written by faculty members are who are under immense pressure to produce authoritative scholarly literature. The process of peer review for university presses typically involves two or three independent referees who will initially review the manuscript. If the manuscript receives positive review, the university press will send it to their editorial board, who are all faculty members, for final review. This review process is required in order to obtain membership into the Association of American University Presses. You may view the member directory of the Association of American University Presses here . Another method for determining whether a book is peer reviewed is to locate book reviews within scholarly journals on that particular book. These book reviews may provide a deep evaluation regarding the quality of scholarship and authority in the book. You may use the Library’s Roadrunner Search to locate book reviews. To locate book reviews: Type the book title into the Roadrunner Search box. Then select Title from the drop-down box. Click Go! to execute the search.

Roadrunner Search example search for book title.

From your results list, look to the Refine Results area on the left hand side of the screen. Scroll down to Source Types and select “Reviews”. Lastly, check mark the box next to “Scholarly/Peer Reviewed Journals” to ensure these book reviews are coming from academic journals as opposed to magazines. Your search results will now only contain books reviews from scholarly/peer reviewed journals.

Roadrunner Search results with Reviews selected as the Source Types limiter.

IGI Global Books - The Library subscribes to several collections of Info-Sci books from IGI Global. They are peer-reviewed. To learn more about their peer-review process and view their video, see this page .

Lastly, you may want to explore titles available from the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB). One of the requirements for taking part in DOAB is the books must be subjected to independent and external peer review prior to publication. Additionally, the policies and procedures regarding peer review and licensing have to be clearly outlined on the publisher web site. More information about these requirements can be found in the Statement on Open Access (Appendix II of the OASPA bylaws). If you are still unsure whether the book you would like to use is considered academic, please refer to our Academic and Popular Resources page which provides a list of common characteristics for determining scholarly resources including academic books.

FAQ Actions

Share on Facebook

Can't find an answer to your question?

SpringerLink shop

Peer Review

The majority of manuscripts that journal editors receive are unsolicited. Some journals, however, only accept papers that they have invited. Some manuscripts will be of extremely high quality, but others papers will be borderline in terms of the scope of the journal and quality of work. With any paper submitted you will have to decide whether this is what the readers want or need and this is where peer reviewers come in.

The quality of peer reviewers is extremely important to the quality of a journal. Peer review helps to uphold the academic credibility of a journal—peer reviewers are almost like intellectual gatekeepers to the journal as they provide an objective assessment of a paper and determine if it is useful enough to be published.

The importance of peer review

Peer reviewers do several things:

However, the final decision as to whether an article is accepted or rejected is always down to the editor.

For more introductory information on peer review, see the peer reviewer academy here .

How to find reviewers

Sourcing referees is one of the most difficult tasks as an editor. Sometimes you can use editorial board members, but they might not be the most suitable and there is arguably a perceived conflict of interest in having them review for the journal they are on the editorial board for.

To find potential peer reviewers you can check the reference list of the manuscript, which is always a good starting point. You can also run searches in SpringerLink to identify who is publishing regularly and recently in that field. On Web of Science, you can rank authors by number of publications in a particular subject, so you can determine who the most prominent researchers are.

It is also equally important to try and obtain a global perspective on a paper, so when narrowing down your list of potential peer reviewers try not to have them all from the same country; the same principle that applies to forming an editorial board . This is particularly important for medical journals as burden of disease and treatment patterns vary from country to country so it often adds value having an article reviewed by international peers.

Once you have found potential referees, it is important to check for any potential conflicts of interest, which include having published with the author recently, working with the author, or being sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that is developing a competitor drug. For rare and new areas this can sometimes be problematic because it may just be one research group who is working on that particular area. However, you can try and delegate to the editorial board for suggestions if there is any potential difficulty; double-blind refereeing, where an author’s identity and that of the referee is concealed, can work well in these circumstances to avoid any potential bias. Some journals ask authors to provide a list of potential peer reviewers; however they must not be from the same institution/research group as the author and they must not have published together—this must be made clear in the instructions to authors information . Again when considering potential referees that have been suggested by an author you should always run a check on PubMed or SpringerLink to attempt to eliminate any potential conflicts of interest.

Finally, once you have the names of your potential reviewers you need to find their contact details. Most of the time, if they have published recently, their latest article might have an email address or contact telephone number in the correspondence section. However, most of the time you will need to be quite proactive at using internet searches to obtain up-to-date contact details.

How to target and invite reviewers

It is common to use 2–3 peer reviewers per manuscript. Because it is always possible that some people may not be available or able to review, it is wise to target more than is required on each occasion (e.g. have five reviewers in mind and recruit three, then if one says no you have another two potentials). It is not unheard of for editors to have to invite seven or more reviewers in order to obtain two peer reviews, especially around holiday seasons. On the other hand, editors must also be mindful that local/regional holidays should not be used as a reason to keep authors waiting. For a potential author, every day is important. It is professional practice to notify authors and reviewers in advance of upcoming holidays/office closures etc., providing them with alternative means of contact during this time wherever practically possible.

Always use reviewers appropriate to the field, perhaps doing similar research; they are more likely to find the paper relevant and interesting, and to be qualified to provide feedback on its strengths and weaknesses. You should avoid asking reviewers who are reviewing other articles for the journal and/or currently writing an article; or those that have reviewed within the last month—the more they are overloaded the less likely they will be to say yes.

When approaching referees it is good practice to invite them prior to sending the full manuscript. The communication should contain the following elements:

If they accept, then you should send the paper with clear instructions and a referee report form.

How to develop a useful reviewer database

Ideally you should aim to have a pool of referees in a database with details of their specialist areas and up-to-date contact details, as well as some notes on quality (i.e. number of times they have peer reviewed, how reliable they are, whether they peer review within the timescale, quality of their previous review(s)).

Some reviewers will write several pages of notes and even annotate and mark up manuscripts, others will produce one line reports that don’t help the editors make a decision. It is important to have this information available when selecting appropriate reviewers.

What programs and software are available

For smaller journals with relatively few submissions, a simple system (i.e. a spreadsheet) may be adequate, but for larger journals, electronic manuscript tracking systems can help to keep track of submissions and help to develop a reviewer database. Editorial Manager , is a web-based manuscript submission and review system that lets authors submit articles directly online. Editorial Manager makes it possible for authors to submit manuscripts via the Internet, provides online peer review services and tracks manuscripts through the entire review process. It also allows editors to communicate directly with authors and reviewers. Key features include automatic conversion of authors’ submissions into PDF format as well as supporting submissions in various file formats and special characters.

Clear instructions for reviewers

After a reviewer accepts your invitation to review a manuscript, the reply should include the article or a link to Editorial Manager and a template report form. They should be encouraged to make constructive comments and the template report form should have the following components:

If a submitted paper’s English is considered to not be up to the standards to be sent to a busy reviewer, then it is the editor’s responsibility to communicate this to the author and suggest that the article undergoes copyediting prior to resubmission.

Setting deadlines and sending reminders

The invitation correspondence needs to clearly state the deadline by which the review should be returned by. Two to three weeks is fairly standard and, given the difficulty in sometimes finding good reviewers, they should always be given the option of negotiating an alternative return by date. Reviewers can be busy people and gentle reminders are often required to chase them up for reviews. You may wish to develop template chaser emails containing the following elements:

If you still get no reply, then consider approaching alternative reviewers from your list of back up reviewers.

Decision types: What they mean and communicating them to authors

Reviewer decisions are really just recommendations and they tend to fall into the following categories:

The decision should not be based on a poll of how many accepts and rejects and maybes the peer-reviewers gave. As an editor, you must verify what the reviewers have suggested and make the final decision. Sometimes reviewer comments may be very superficial and occasionally inappropriate. If there are situations where there are clear differences in opinions between reviewers then options include inviting another reviewer to make a final decision, or approaching an editorial board member.

Before sending the reviewer comments to an author it is good practice to edit and/or select the most constructive and relevant comments to make it clear to the author what the decision is and what might need to be done if their article needs revising.

Decisions tend to either be that the author needs to revise the manuscript or that the manuscript is rejected. Template emails are again useful here.

Request for revision should include statements as follows:

Rejection letters are hard to write, especially in situations when an author has revised the manuscript, sometimes several times, and it is always important to show respect for the time the author has spent writing and/or revising the manuscript. The elements of a rejection letter should include:

"Your paper has now been peer reviewed and the manuscript was considered to be unsuitable for publication in (journal name) for several reasons, such as:"

It is important that the rejection letter contains honest and constructive feedback. Equally, it is important that authors are not given false hope that if they make some revisions to the article then they can resubmit it to your journal if this is definitely not the case.

In cases of rejection due to plagiarism, the rejection letter should follow a different format and you should refer to COPE for flowcharts and template letters.

Working with reviewers

Reviewers can be very busy people and so it is important to not overload them with work. If you know that the same person is also writing an article for the journal or reviewing another article, or has very recently reviewed an article within the last month, it would be sensible to avoid asking them again too soon—the more they are overloaded the less likely they will be to say yes. But, much of this depends on your working relationship with them.

In terms of setting deadlines for reviews, this depends on your internal deadlines; a month may be adequate or too long. It is important to be flexible and plan well in advance, especially for holiday periods, the end of the year is usually a difficult time to recruit reviewers and you always need to have at least one or two back-up reviewers on standby to contact if you have any problems in recruiting and/or hearing back from reviewers when you are working to a tight deadline.

If you have no response from a reviewer, despite one or two chaser emails, you should go ahead and invite an alternative reviewer and let the person who was originally invited know that they are no longer required on this occasion. There are many reasons why a reviewer may not respond to your emails and it is important to be polite and sensitive in your correspondence. The email should state that you understand that they are busy; however, due to time restrictions in meeting publication deadlines, on this occasion another reviewer has been recruited.

Sometimes reviewer comments can be quite scathing, or the quality of the review might be very superficial. Occasionally reviewers might be in direct competition with the author, want more of their own publications cited or have another agenda. Furthermore, peer reviewers might feel restricted and intimidated in what they say about a manuscript as they are worried about the potential repercussions of making negative comments.

Different refereeing systems have been developed, such as double-blind refereeing, where the author and the referee identities are masked as far as possible, which contrasts with open refereeing where the referee and the author know each others identity.

Conflicts of interest can exist with reviewers and you should aim to screen much of this out before you invite a reviewer. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

It is always polite to thank reviewers when they have spent the time reviewing an article. A personal email is often best and reviewers tend to be interested in what the overall decision was.

Interactive resources you can assign in your digital classroom from TPT.

Easel Activities

Easel Assessments

Unlock access to 4 million resources — at no cost to you — with a school-funded subscription..

peer review opinion piece

All Formats

Resource types, all resource types, results for peer review opinion piece.

Opinion Writing - Peer Editing Checklist

Opinion Writing - Writer's Workshop

Also included in: Writing Workshop Bundle

Classroom Chronicles: A Classroom Created Newspaper

Tales of a First Grade Teacher-Jessica Berggren

Monthly Writing Prompts / Story Starters for the Whole Year

Opinion Writing Bundle Pack

Writing a book report {the easy way} CCSS Aligned

Reading Street 4th Grade Units 1 - 6 Daily Comprehension Review

W.2.1 Peer Review Form

Opinion Writing Pack {A CCSS Activity Pack for Early Writers!}

Also included in: Writing Bundle! CCSS Pack for K-2 {Narrative, Opinion, Informational}

Book Review Assignment

Word Document File

Fact & Opinion Activity | Digital Jigsaw Puzzle for Google Forms™

Internet Activities

Also included in: ELA Skills Digital Jigsaw BUNDLE for Google Forms™

ELA-Development: Genetically Modified Crops with 2 Versions

Dodecahedron Fiction Book Report Project - SPANISH

Graphic Organizers and Test Prep by Mr Loeza

Informational Writing Packet (leveled)

Ice Cream Opinion Writing & Craft

Chapter 7 Peter Pan The Wendy Bird

MEGA BUNDLE | Writing Prompts

Summer 1st Grade English Language Arts Skills - Back to School

Also included in: Summer 1st Grade Readiness - Back to School Activities

TPT empowers educators to teach at their best.

Keep in Touch!

Are you getting the free resources, updates, and special offers we send out every week in our teacher newsletter?

Finding and Using Health Statistics

Peer-reviewed literature

Peer-reviewed journal articles have gone through an evaluation process in which journal editors and other expert scholars critically assess the quality and scientific merit of the article and its research. Articles that pass this process are published in the peer-reviewed literature. Peer-reviewed journals may include the research of scholars who have collected their own data using an experimental study design, survey, or various other study methodologies. They also present the work of researchers who have performed novel analyses of existing data sources, such as the ones described in this section.

Peer-reviewed literature is accessible via academic databases that enable users to execute searches across multiple journals.

Academic Databases for the Health and Biomedical Sciences

Leading Health- and Health Care-related Journals

Benefits of Peer-Reviewed Literature

Limitations of Peer-Reviewed Literature

Previous Section Next Section

IMAGES

Peer Review in Nursing: Principles for Successful Practice: 9780763790400: Medicine & Health
Peer Review
Peer Review
QA/QC: The Benefits of Peer Review -A/E Process Review EVstudio
Peer Review Best Practices: Case Studies and Lessons Learned: 9781601462572: Medicine & Health
Effective Peer Review, Second Edition: A Practical Guide to Contemporary Design: 9781601460110

VIDEO

Manuscript Submission Process
The Book and the Author Series #urdu #novels #peer_e_kamil #umeraahmed #books #booktube
James Reads Books
PEER system: easy and clear academic writing
what is a peer reviewed article or journal || Peer review journal || what is peer review ||
Peer reviewed Articles

COMMENTS

What is the peer review process for books?
Peer review is the foundation upon which all quality academic book publishing is built. However, many aspects of the peer review process remain opaque to authors. Using Palgrave Macmillan's editorial standards as an example, let's address a few frequently asked questions. Will I have a say in who evaluates my materials?
Peer Review
Peer review is the foundation of quality in research for both books and journals, ensuring that published research is rigorous, ethical and significant to the discipline in question. On these pages you'll find information about how to review both books and journal articles, as well as some frequently asked questions, notes on ethics in review ...
Peer-review of Books and Journal Articles
Peer review also ensures the integrity of the publishing process. Perhaps one of the greatest added value of the peer review process is that it gives authors access to expert opinions in the field as well as useful critical insight into the methods and models used (or can be used) in the study.
Peer Review Books
Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
A guide to reviewing book proposals
Peer review is an integral component of publishing the best quality research. Its purpose is to: 1. Aid in the vetting and selection of research for publication, ensuring that the best work is taken forward. 2. Provide suggestions for improving books that go through review, raising the general quality of the final product. 3.
Where to Find Peer Reviewed Sources
Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database including peer-reviewed titles from international publishers, Open Access journals, conference proceedings, trade publications and quality web sources.
Are books peer-reviewed? My professor said I could include books in my
Peer reviewed refers to a process through which most scholarly academic articles are vetted prior to publication. Although many books go through some type of review process, most books are not clearly identified as peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed; determining what type of review process a particular book went through is more than most professors intend for you to do.
The Peer Review Process: What Sets University Presses Apart
While peer review is a significant aspect of the scholarly publishing process—it's what sets university presses and other academic publishers apart from the rest of the publishing world—remember that individual peer reviewers don't decide your book's fate with the publisher. The input of experts in your field does matter to the ...
10 Examples of Peer Reviews
A peer review is a process of evaluation where other knowledgeable people, on the subject matter, provide feedback on someone else's work. We have 10 examples! ... The book might be improved if there were more examples provided in some sections. For example: When you discuss 'how to use the Scott-Martin technique in a counseling session ...
Best Practices for Peer Review
Section 1: The AE's Choices about Why, When, and How to Conduct Peer Review Section 2: Selecting Peer Reviewers Section 3: Working with Peer Reviewers Section 4: Sharing Peer Reviews with Authors Section 5: Peer Reviews as Documents of Record PUBLISHING NOTES
What Is Peer Review?
Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing, is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.
Peer Review
Peer Review. This week we are working asynchronously to share rough drafts for Project 1: Materialities of the Book. Before midnight on Sunday, March 5 post your rough draft as a blog post, using the Materialities Drafts category. You can select an image at random from our media library as your featured image.
Publishing Open Access Books: OA Books Peer Review
Taylor & Francis is committed to the highest standards of peer-review in order to maintain our reputation for scholarly rigour and quality control and this is equally true for any Open Access book titles. All Taylor & Francis Books Open Access titles will be sent out to multiple referees before there is any agreement to proceed with them.
e-Books Peer-Review Process
e-Books Peer-Review Process. Peertechz e-Books undergo rigorous peer-review process to authenticate research works in science, health and medicine before final publication. Peer-review process also helps in analyse whether the submitted e-Book maintains ethical standards and safeguards the truthful honest research works.
How to Write a Peer Review
General guidelines for effective feedback Do Justify your recommendation with concrete evidence and specific examples. Be specific so the authors know what they need to do to improve. Be thorough. This might be the only time you read the manuscript. Be professional and respectful. The authors will be reading these comments too.
Peer Reviewing
Academic Editors' chapters undergo external double-blind peer-review - the result is a fully peer-reviewed book. Review outcomes are typically accepted, revision required (major or minor), or rejected. During the review process, the Academic Editor(s) (External Editor) suggest rounds of revision and authors work on improving their chapters.
Are books peer reviewed?
"Peer review" is the editorial process that scholarly articles go through before they are published in a journal. Since not all books go through the same editorial process before publication, most aren't peer reviewed. They can be still be good scholarly sources, though.
Are books peer reviewed? If so, how can I tell or how can I find them
One method for locating peer-reviewed books is to take a look at book publications from university presses. Books published by university presses almost always go through a process of peer review. Books from university presses are typically written by faculty members are who are under immense pressure to produce authoritative scholarly literature.
Peer Review
Peer Review The majority of manuscripts that journal editors receive are unsolicited. Some journals, however, only accept papers that they have invited. Some manuscripts will be of extremely high quality, but others papers will be borderline in terms of the scope of the journal and quality of work.
Peer Review Opinion Piece Teaching Resources
A Book Review provides an opportunity for students to write an opinion piece about a book they read. This book review assignment gives students an opportunity to. ... Students can use this peer editing checklist to review their own opinion writing piece and then have a friend check their work! Great for building student accountability and ...
Peer-reviewed literature
Peer-reviewed journals may include the research of scholars who have collected their own data using an experimental study design, survey, or various other study methodologies. They also present the work of researchers who have performed novel analyses of existing data sources, such as the ones described in this section.
PDF Refreshed Guide
Refreshed Guide - cambridge.org