Introduction
Peer review is one of the most well known and most important forms of communication in science. Not only is the peer review process a form of communication between the author and reviewer, but it allows for common course of action for all scientists wanting to be published, regardless of experience level. This promotes the unbiased and organized questioning in the scientific community. This text will analyze peer review and it's rhetorical characteristics, how these rhetorical techniques lead to more constructive reviews and how these reviews improve the author as well as contribute to the scientific community.
The structure and organization of this text will be based off an informational resource for those interested in publishing a scientific paper. The style will be educational. The structure will be similar to a pyramid, starting with broad information about the peer review process, followed by a breakdown of the different steps in the process, and finally a critical analysis of each of those parts.
Background
The peer review process is a form of scientific communication that aims to both ensure published scientific knowledge is reliable as well as improve the overall quality of the published products entering the scientific bank of knowledge. Peer review is one of the most important forms of communication within the sciences as it determines what is taken for fact versus speculation. It also ensures the results are readable and understandable to a scientific audience.
Most journals have guidelines for their peer reviewers. For example, Science Magazine requires that “reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author” (Science Magazine). The peer review process involves submitting a paper to a few scientists considered to be professionals in the field. Those reviewers will then submit their constructive criticisms and recommend the journal either rejects the paper, accepts with major revisions, accepts with minor revisions or accept (this is very rare). This process not only confirms quality, but stimulates deeper thinking in the author about their research. For example, a reviewer may refer the author to a prior study that relates to the research in question or a that the author can use as a reference for formatting, as seen in Sam Schwarzkofp’s re-review of “Brain-to-Brain (mind-to-mind) interaction at distance: a confirmatory study” (Tressoldi et al., 2014). This encourages the idea that science is not done individually and requires intricate communication throughout the process.
While the process of peer review is intended to be unbiased, it is not foolproof. Reviewers and editors are people who can and will make mistakes. Reviewers are encouraged to remove themselves from situations in which they may be reviewing a paper they are biased against due to their beliefs, contradicting research, or their opinion of the author. Authors may also request reviewers or request that someone does not review their paper. The goal is to cultivate communication that is meaningful, unbiased and engaging for both the reviewer and the author.
Rhetorical Devices
The communication involved in peer review is critically important to the scientific process. Simply accepting or denying a submission is not productive. The reviewer must give constructive feedback and give the author direction on how to fix the paper’s flaws. In order for the reviewer’s remarks to be taken seriously, they must establish their credibility. To be chosen as a peer reviewer, a person must be considered an expert in their field. Simply by their status as a peer reviewer for the journal, it is apparent in peer review feedback that the reviewer is credible. However, the reviewer often times establishes their credibility by referencing prior research or drawing from their own experience in their feedback. For example, Schwarzkopf uses his own experience in his re-review of Tressondi’s submission when he says “The authors argue in their response and the revision that predictive strategies were unlikely. After having performed these additional analyses I am inclined to agree”. Not only is he known to be a credible scientists, but he gives reasoning from his own experience why he is in disagreement with the author.
With ethos established, the majority of reviews rely heavily on logos. As someone reading from an outside perspective, the reviewer must ensure the paper is easily understood and that each statement is clear, concise and has been properly explained. It is often difficult for the author to adopt this perspective, because as the person conducting the research, they have far more background knowledge than the reader. The reviewer’s job is to ensure that the authors claims are logical and properly supported. For example, Schwarzkopf says, “While the revised methods section provides more detail now, it still is unclear about exactly what data were used”, continuing to explain his concerns in detail. While Tressondi et al. likely know which data are being used, it must be made clear to anyone reading the article.
While there is little emotion involved in the peer review, there can be hints of pathos involved in a peer review. Even in the sternest of reviews, the reviewer is inclined to applaud the authors in some way, and ensure they have some positive feedback to build from. Even is Schwarzkopf’s highly critical re-review of Tressondi et al.’s resubmission, he says, “Based on all these factors, it is impossible for me to approve this manuscript. I should however state that it is laudable that the authors chose to make all the raw data of their experiment publicly available. […] I respect the authors’ patience and professionalism in dealing with what I can only assume is a rather harsh review experience. I am honoured by the request for an adversarial collaboration. I do not rule out such efforts at some point in the future”.
These characteristics combined can make for a peer review that the author can really benefit from. As a community, all scientists share in this process and can be confident that the knowledge that is available has been through this process. As a whole, the process promotes the inclusive but skeptical nature of the scientific community.
Tone and Organization
The notes to the author range from suggestions about style and organization, to criticisms of the authors main points and purpose. Being an expert in the field, reviewers may be aware of other papers that are critical to the authors findings and research. The voice should be one of constructive criticism. The tone should be not negative but should convey both positives and negatives on the paper. Even in Schwarzkopf’s stern re-review, he applauds the authors’ progress after getting his point across.
The organization can vary as the structure of the review is dependent on its nature. If the review is highly critical, it may be organized in a way that explains each criticism individually. It is common for the reviewers to start with an overview of what they thought, then continuing with separate paragraphs detailing what they liked and didn’t like about the paper. Most reviews end with a conclusion, explaining why they have made their decision. This is seen in Schwarzkopf’s review which begins with an introduction, followed by nine points of criticism explained thoroughly, and ending with a conclusion.
As states previously, the peer review process is far from foolproof. In an interview with Dr. Candice Harris, she says she has experienced both the good and the bad side of peer review. Overall, she finds the process to be helpful and necessary, but she has experienced bias and non-constructive reviews. These non-constructive reviews identified the problem but failed to acknowledge the root of that problem, or suggest routes to take in fixing it. Other reviews were biased and seemed overcritical, says Harris, and when compared to the other reviewers were clearly a result of the reviewer’s predisposition.
Not only does peer review improve the final draft, but it can improve the authors thought process for their next submission. Understanding what reviewers are looking for and what gaps to fill can make the individual author better at what he does. Although the process can be grueling and is far from perfect, the peer review process helps to make author’s better at communicating, encourages discourse within the scientific community and ensures the quality and truth of all research being deposited into the community bank of knowledge.
References
Peer Review at Science Publications. (2018, February 07). Retrieved March 04, 2018, from http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/peer-review-science-publications
Tressoldi, P. E., Pederzoli, L., Bilucaglia, M., Caini, P., Fedele, P., Ferrini, A., . . . Accardo, A. (n.d.). Brain-to-Brain (mind-to-mind) interaction at distance: a confirmatory study. Retrieved March 04, 2018, from https://f1000research.com/articles/3-182/v2#referee-response-6254
Re-review by Sam Schwarzkopf, 2014
Harris, C. (2018, February 20). Informational Interview for Peer Review [Personal interview].
Peer review is one of the most well known and most important forms of communication in science. Not only is the peer review process a form of communication between the author and reviewer, but it allows for common course of action for all scientists wanting to be published, regardless of experience level. This promotes the unbiased and organized questioning in the scientific community. This text will analyze peer review and it's rhetorical characteristics, how these rhetorical techniques lead to more constructive reviews and how these reviews improve the author as well as contribute to the scientific community.
The structure and organization of this text will be based off an informational resource for those interested in publishing a scientific paper. The style will be educational. The structure will be similar to a pyramid, starting with broad information about the peer review process, followed by a breakdown of the different steps in the process, and finally a critical analysis of each of those parts.
Background
The peer review process is a form of scientific communication that aims to both ensure published scientific knowledge is reliable as well as improve the overall quality of the published products entering the scientific bank of knowledge. Peer review is one of the most important forms of communication within the sciences as it determines what is taken for fact versus speculation. It also ensures the results are readable and understandable to a scientific audience.
Most journals have guidelines for their peer reviewers. For example, Science Magazine requires that “reviews should be constructive and courteous and the reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author” (Science Magazine). The peer review process involves submitting a paper to a few scientists considered to be professionals in the field. Those reviewers will then submit their constructive criticisms and recommend the journal either rejects the paper, accepts with major revisions, accepts with minor revisions or accept (this is very rare). This process not only confirms quality, but stimulates deeper thinking in the author about their research. For example, a reviewer may refer the author to a prior study that relates to the research in question or a that the author can use as a reference for formatting, as seen in Sam Schwarzkofp’s re-review of “Brain-to-Brain (mind-to-mind) interaction at distance: a confirmatory study” (Tressoldi et al., 2014). This encourages the idea that science is not done individually and requires intricate communication throughout the process.
While the process of peer review is intended to be unbiased, it is not foolproof. Reviewers and editors are people who can and will make mistakes. Reviewers are encouraged to remove themselves from situations in which they may be reviewing a paper they are biased against due to their beliefs, contradicting research, or their opinion of the author. Authors may also request reviewers or request that someone does not review their paper. The goal is to cultivate communication that is meaningful, unbiased and engaging for both the reviewer and the author.
Rhetorical Devices
The communication involved in peer review is critically important to the scientific process. Simply accepting or denying a submission is not productive. The reviewer must give constructive feedback and give the author direction on how to fix the paper’s flaws. In order for the reviewer’s remarks to be taken seriously, they must establish their credibility. To be chosen as a peer reviewer, a person must be considered an expert in their field. Simply by their status as a peer reviewer for the journal, it is apparent in peer review feedback that the reviewer is credible. However, the reviewer often times establishes their credibility by referencing prior research or drawing from their own experience in their feedback. For example, Schwarzkopf uses his own experience in his re-review of Tressondi’s submission when he says “The authors argue in their response and the revision that predictive strategies were unlikely. After having performed these additional analyses I am inclined to agree”. Not only is he known to be a credible scientists, but he gives reasoning from his own experience why he is in disagreement with the author.
With ethos established, the majority of reviews rely heavily on logos. As someone reading from an outside perspective, the reviewer must ensure the paper is easily understood and that each statement is clear, concise and has been properly explained. It is often difficult for the author to adopt this perspective, because as the person conducting the research, they have far more background knowledge than the reader. The reviewer’s job is to ensure that the authors claims are logical and properly supported. For example, Schwarzkopf says, “While the revised methods section provides more detail now, it still is unclear about exactly what data were used”, continuing to explain his concerns in detail. While Tressondi et al. likely know which data are being used, it must be made clear to anyone reading the article.
While there is little emotion involved in the peer review, there can be hints of pathos involved in a peer review. Even in the sternest of reviews, the reviewer is inclined to applaud the authors in some way, and ensure they have some positive feedback to build from. Even is Schwarzkopf’s highly critical re-review of Tressondi et al.’s resubmission, he says, “Based on all these factors, it is impossible for me to approve this manuscript. I should however state that it is laudable that the authors chose to make all the raw data of their experiment publicly available. […] I respect the authors’ patience and professionalism in dealing with what I can only assume is a rather harsh review experience. I am honoured by the request for an adversarial collaboration. I do not rule out such efforts at some point in the future”.
These characteristics combined can make for a peer review that the author can really benefit from. As a community, all scientists share in this process and can be confident that the knowledge that is available has been through this process. As a whole, the process promotes the inclusive but skeptical nature of the scientific community.
Tone and Organization
The notes to the author range from suggestions about style and organization, to criticisms of the authors main points and purpose. Being an expert in the field, reviewers may be aware of other papers that are critical to the authors findings and research. The voice should be one of constructive criticism. The tone should be not negative but should convey both positives and negatives on the paper. Even in Schwarzkopf’s stern re-review, he applauds the authors’ progress after getting his point across.
The organization can vary as the structure of the review is dependent on its nature. If the review is highly critical, it may be organized in a way that explains each criticism individually. It is common for the reviewers to start with an overview of what they thought, then continuing with separate paragraphs detailing what they liked and didn’t like about the paper. Most reviews end with a conclusion, explaining why they have made their decision. This is seen in Schwarzkopf’s review which begins with an introduction, followed by nine points of criticism explained thoroughly, and ending with a conclusion.
As states previously, the peer review process is far from foolproof. In an interview with Dr. Candice Harris, she says she has experienced both the good and the bad side of peer review. Overall, she finds the process to be helpful and necessary, but she has experienced bias and non-constructive reviews. These non-constructive reviews identified the problem but failed to acknowledge the root of that problem, or suggest routes to take in fixing it. Other reviews were biased and seemed overcritical, says Harris, and when compared to the other reviewers were clearly a result of the reviewer’s predisposition.
Not only does peer review improve the final draft, but it can improve the authors thought process for their next submission. Understanding what reviewers are looking for and what gaps to fill can make the individual author better at what he does. Although the process can be grueling and is far from perfect, the peer review process helps to make author’s better at communicating, encourages discourse within the scientific community and ensures the quality and truth of all research being deposited into the community bank of knowledge.
References
Peer Review at Science Publications. (2018, February 07). Retrieved March 04, 2018, from http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/peer-review-science-publications
Tressoldi, P. E., Pederzoli, L., Bilucaglia, M., Caini, P., Fedele, P., Ferrini, A., . . . Accardo, A. (n.d.). Brain-to-Brain (mind-to-mind) interaction at distance: a confirmatory study. Retrieved March 04, 2018, from https://f1000research.com/articles/3-182/v2#referee-response-6254
Re-review by Sam Schwarzkopf, 2014
Harris, C. (2018, February 20). Informational Interview for Peer Review [Personal interview].