Published online Nov 5, 2018. doi: 10.5412/wjsp.v8.i1.1
Peer-review started: July 23, 2018
First decision: August 20, 2018
Revised: September 24, 2018
Accepted: October 19, 2018
Article in press: October 19, 2018
Published online: November 5, 2018
In order to ensure that the highest quality of literature is published, most journals utilize a peer review process for manuscripts submitted. Although the primary purpose for this process is to filter out ”bad science”, the process is not perfect. While there is a general consensus among researchers and clinicians that something must be done to improve upon the method for properly vetting manuscripts, there are conflicting opinions on how to best implement new policies. In this paper, we discuss the most well-supported suggestions to improve the process, with the hopes of increasing rigor and reproducibility, ensuring double-blinding, developing set guidelines, offering early training to reviewers, and giving reviewers better feedback and recognition for their work.
Core tip: The peer review process lacks the proper transparency required to ensure adequate promotion of reproducibility and reliability, which are two core characteristics that peer-reviewed, published data should possess. It is important for researchers to re-evaluate the peer review process continuously in order to formulate up-to-date methods for improving transparency, thereby strengthening its credibility.