Ask the expert: Peer review, what it is and why it matters
When it comes to peer review, contradiction is common. One reviewer may praise the work, while another sees nothing but issues or seems to miss the point. However, these disagreements are part of the peer-review process, which shapes not only what gets published, but what ultimately influences practice.
Joshua Winowiecki is a clinical nurse specialist, assistant professor and the inaugural director of the Center for Practice Transformation at the MSU College of Nursing. He has nearly 20 years of experience in nursing and health care and teaches others how to review research. Here, Winowiecki explains what peer review is, how it works and why we have it.
Answers are excerpts from an article originally published in The Conversation.
What is peer review and why do we have it?
Peer review is the checkpoint where scientific claims are validated before they are shared with the world. Researchers and scholars submit their findings to academic journals, which invite other scholars with similar expertise — peers — to assess the work. Reviewers look at the way the scholar designed the project, the methods they used and whether their conclusions are justified.
Peer review helps play a protective role, slowing things down just enough to critically evaluate the work, catch mistakes, question assumptions and raise red flags. Millions of research papers go through the process annually, which helps to filter through papers and decide what research is credible.
What happens when a paper is peer reviewed?
Once researchers submit their paper to a particular journal that publishes new work in their discipline, the editorial process begins. At this point, journal editors send it out to two or three reviewers who have relevant expertise. Reviewers read for clarity, accuracy, originality and usefulness. They offer comments about what’s missing, what needs to be explained more carefully, and whether the findings seem valid. Sometimes the feedback is collegial and helpful. Sometimes it’s not.
Some reviewers seem especially hard to please, misreading the argument or demanding rewrites that would reshape the entire project. But even these kinds of reviews serve a purpose. They show how work might be received more broadly. Many times, they flag weaknesses the author hasn’t seen.
What are the challenges associated with the peer-review process?
The review process is slow, as most reviewers not paid. Nearly 75% of reviewers reported that they were not paid or formally recognized for their efforts. Reviewers do this work on top of their regular clinical, teaching or research responsibilities. Further, not every editor has the time or capacity to sort through conflicting feedback or to moderate tone. The result is a process that can feel uneven, opaque and, at times, unfair.
Peer review also doesn’t always catch what it should. It is better at identifying sloppy thinking than it is at detecting fraud. If data is fabricated or manipulated, a reviewer may not have the tools or the time to figure that out. In recent years, a growing number of published papers have been retracted after concerns about plagiarism or faked results arose. That trend has shaken confidence in the system and raised questions about what additional steps journals should take prior to publication.
Why is peer review still important?
Even though the current peer-review system has its shortcomings, most researchers would argue that science is better off now than it would be without the level of scrutiny peer review provides. In one international survey of medical researchers, a clear majority said they trusted peer-reviewed science, despite frustrations with how slow or inconsistent the process can be. The challenge now is how to make peer review better.
Some journals are experimenting with publishing reviewer comments alongside articles, while others are trying systems where feedback continues after publication. There are also proposals to use artificial intelligence to help flag potential errors before human reviewers even begin. These efforts are promising but still in the early stages of development and adoption.
Peer review is central to how scientific publishing works, especially for health, nursing and medicine. Peer review assures a reader that a journal article’s claim has been tested, scrutinized and revised. Research that survives review is more likely to be trusted and acted upon by health care practitioners and their patients.
While peer review doesn’t always work, even scholars who complain about the system often still believe in it. Peer review doesn’t guarantee truth. But it does invite challenge, foster transparency, offer reflection and force revision. That’s often where the real work of science begins.