• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peer reviewed articles

nimzov

Unregistered
N
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
954
I have an idea how peer review works, but how do you know if a specific article has been peer-reviewed ?

Is there a note somewhere in the article or do you have to go by the review policy of the publication ?

Thanks

nimzo
 
Its based on the journal, it should say whether it is a peer reviewed journal somwhere in the first couple of pages or in explanations about submissions.
 
Peer reviewed, in sciences, usually means that they are the ones published by the professional associations. In psychology, they would be the Association for Psychological Science, the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and the American Psychological Association. And there are other journals, like the Psychological Review, which are unaffiliated, but peer reviewed and respected.
People in each field learn which sources are to be trusted. The Journal of Irreproducable Results, for example. Or the Worm Runner's Digest. I actually have a publication in that, "A Simple and Inexpensive Aversive Stimulus Generator."
 
Last edited:
nimzov said:
I have an idea how peer review works, but how do you know if a specific article has been peer-reviewed ?

Is there a note somewhere in the article or do you have to go by the review policy of the publication ?
Click to expand...

I should also note that not everything that appears between the pages of a "peer-reviewed" journal has actually been peer reviewed. Book reviews, for example, are usually not peer-reviewed, and neither are most "editorials." If you're familiar with the journal in question -- or even with the industry in general -- that's usually not a problem, but if you're new to the field, you can get confused. Caveat lector.
 
I see many good comments, especially the caution that one really needs to know the reputation of the journal. Note, however, a journal can be held in high-regard by subscribers and still be junk. This is especially true for "AltMed" publications. When one is a quack, one's peer reviewers are also quacks (i.e., incompetent).

Unfortunately, indexing in PubMed does relate to the validity of "peer reviewed" journals. The NIH was/is under political pressure to be kind to quacks, so they include homeopathic and chiropratic "peer reviewed" magazines.

Finally, Publication in a high-quality, peer-reviewed journal is no guaranty of the veracity of the publication. For example, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php
there was an article, supporting use of homeopathy, in a very good journal. However, after publication the article was subjected to analysis by more scientists- it was found lacking.

Peer reviewed publication is the beginning of the process, it does not engrave the conclusions in granite.
 
As a student doing research for homework, how would I know which to trust?
 
Joppy said:
As a student doing research for homework, how would I know which to trust?
Click to expand...

Ask your reference librarian if you school has access to Ulrich's Web or, if you live in a big city with a large university in it, see if the university will give you access to its copy*.

*Most often, if you make the effort to use the database on-site they will let yo use it.
 
not to derail, but does anyone know if it's appropriate to publish comments that you got back from a peer review?

I got a very interesting comment just the other day from an article, but I dunno if it'd be ok to post it.

TIA



btw, the reputation of the journal is probably the best predictor of how good the average article is.
 
Slightly off topic (but related enough to make it relevant)...

A while ago, I read about a study some people did about the peer review process. If I remember correctly, they took articles which had previously been published by well-known experts in various fields of study, and resubmitted them to other publications under new names (less well-known people in the field.) Many of the articles ended up being rejected.

The lesson being that peer review isn't perfect, and sometimes the popularity of the author is as important as content.

Despite its flaws however, I do think peer review is one of the best ways for guaranteeing a high signal-to-noise ratio when it comes to scientific literature.
 
Segnosaur said:
A while ago, I read about a study some people did about the peer review process. If I remember correctly, they took articles which had previously been published by well-known experts in various fields of study, and resubmitted them to other publications under new names (less well-known people in the field.) Many of the articles ended up being rejected.

The lesson being that peer review isn't perfect, and sometimes the popularity of the author is as important as content.
Click to expand...

Except that's not the only thing being tested. Lack of sufficient novelty and significance is grounds for rejection, whether or not the quality of the work is in doubt. So reviewers might be aware, even if they don't recognize the article as duplicate, that what's being presented isn't really new anymore.
 
bpesta22 said:
not to derail, but does anyone know if it's appropriate to publish comments that you got back from a peer review?

I got a very interesting comment just the other day from an article, but I dunno if it'd be ok to post it.

TIA



btw, the reputation of the journal is probably the best predictor of how good the average article is.
Click to expand...

Sure. When you receive correspondence, it's yours. Usually, reviews are anonymous anyway. Who could it harm?
I once received the shortest review I ever saw. "I guess it's OK, for a group design."
From the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
 
One way to find out if a science journal is peer reviewed is by looking at the back or front of the journal and look for the names of the reviewers. In the "IEEE transactions on Antennas and Propagation" journal the names of the reviewers appear on the back of the last page. There are about 200 reviewers' names.

What is the subject that you are interested in? maybe someone here can help you.

Regards,
Yair
 
Joppy said:
As a student doing research for homework, how would I know which to trust?
Click to expand...

If you're doing research for homework, look to your teacher or professor. However, if it's homework, I doubt it's worth publishing. Care to tell why you think it should be published?
 
Slimething said:
If you're doing research for homework, look to your teacher or professor. However, if it's homework, I doubt it's worth publishing. Care to tell why you think it should be published?
Click to expand...

It sounds like he/she is writing a paper and needs to use peer-reviewed journals as sources, which was a common requirement for the research papers I worte when I was in college.
 
Jeff Corey said:
Peer reviewed, in sciences, usually means that they are the ones published by the professional associations.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Most journals published by professional associations are peer reviewed, but there are plenty of peer reviewed journals that aren't published by professional associations.
 
bpesta22 said:
not to derail, but does anyone know if it's appropriate to publish comments that you got back from a peer review?

I got a very interesting comment just the other day from an article, but I dunno if it'd be ok to post it.
Click to expand...
If you found it helpful; by all means acknowledge it. Otherwise, be careful. Trust me, you really don't want to annoy some anonimous person in your field.
 
I tend to have a big mouth as many have noticed here, so I wanna be careful, as I still need to revise and re-submit my article.

That said, as I mentioned here in a thread on IQ, I submitted an article to Intelligence.

I just got the reviews back-- revise and resubmit!! I think there's a reasonable chance this puppy will get accepted.

Anyway, I cited someone who's very popular in the mainstream media (and a favorite of many posters here) but is largely ignored by people doing research on IQ.

One reviewer said this:

"CITING FOOLS: Why cite an amateur (read idiot) like XXXX? The man is an advocate, not a scientist. Would the authors cite people who claim the earth is flat in a paper on geography".

Wow!!! That's the coolest comment I've ever gotten on anything I've submitted.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom