Peer Review is the bridge that connects the author to its destination, their published article.
In its true form, it is a symbol of real collaboration. Besides ensuring the integrity of a scholarly record, Peer Review builds communication, discussion, and ethical conduct.
The process of Peer Review is dependent on trust. By lieu of that, it encourages everyone involved to conduct themselves responsibly and ethically.
Although this may be the case as mentioned above, often, many Peer Reviewers may be unaware of their ethical obligations. As a result, they often approach Peer Review without any guidance.
It will not be incorrect to say that Peer Reviewers are like guardian angels helping save authors’ from making errors, identifying flaws in their logic, and analysing your research from a wholesome perspective.
However, many early career researchers often think of Peer Reviewers negatively, as though reviewers are ‘out to get’ them by finding flaws in their work.
If you feel the same way, continue reading…
The truth, drumrolls please, is that most of the researchers view Peer Review as a valuable community service. They often do Peer Review as quid pro quo expecting the same courtesy in return when they write a paper.
So, let us get the basics right first. What is Peer Review?
Peer Review is as exactly as the name suggests. It is the review of your manuscript by your peers before it is published.
It is a proven system that uses independent researchers in the relevant research area to assess manuscripts sent to them by publishing editors for originality, validity, and significance. Their analysis determines whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.
Yes, we know that you know what Peer Review is. But it is important to revisit the definition to build into the significance of the process.
The Resource Centre on the Vikramshila website has a section specially created for explaining the nuts and bolts of Peer Review. Click here to visit now.
Does Vikramshila have a Peer Review process?
Yes absolutely.
Vikramshila offers two options of Peer Review to publish a paper:
1. Double-anonymous Pre-Publishing Peer Review
2. Open Post Publishing Peer Review
Every article published on our platform automatically qualifies for Open Post Publishing Peer Review.
Double-anonymous: In this model of review, also known as the ‘double blind peer review’, the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.
Many researchers believe that the double-anonymous peer review will give their paper a fairer chance than the single blind review. That is because the double-anonymous peer review bypasses the possibility of a researcher applying unintended bias to the manuscript.
Please remember that there are always exceptions to the rule. When working in a specialised field, authors and reviewers may be able to recognize each other.
Open Post-publication Peer Review: In this model of review, the author may or may not choose to go through the Anonymous Pre-Publishing Peer Review. In either case, the paper will be published online immediately after a plagiarism check.
Once it is published, experts from the field – invited or uninvited – can review and comment on the paper. The author may choose to respond to these comments directly in the comments section.
On the Vikramshila platform, the Open Post-Publication Peer Review is led directly by the article authors. It is also fully open and transparent.
While the platform opens the article up for review, the author also suggests and invites reviewers to comment on their article. Peer review reports and comments are published – alongside with the reviewers’ full names and affiliations.
Open Peer Review: It is interesting to note that there is no agreed standard definition of Open Peer Review or OPR despite being a major pillar of open science. Tony Ross-Hellauer, in a 2017 study found as many as 122 overlapping and contradictory definitions of Open Peer Review.
As the name suggests, in this review type, the author(s) know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the author(s) are.
After the review, the reviewer reports are published alongside the article and so is the authors’ response to the reviewer.
The term Open Peer lends itself to various versions. Hellauer identified seven major OPR traits that cover 99% of core characteristics of Open Peer Review. These are:
Open identities: Authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identity.
Open reports: Review reports are published alongside the relevant article.
Open participation: The research community contributes to the review process.
Open interaction: There is a direct reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, and/or between reviewers. Such interactions are allowed and encouraged.
Open pre-review manuscripts: Manuscripts are made immediately available (usually through pre-print servers) in advance of any formal peer review procedures.
Open final-version commenting: Review or commenting on final “version of record” publications.
Open platforms (“decoupled review”): Review is facilitated by a different organizational entity than the venue of publication.
Open Peer Review may include a variety of combinations of these and other novel methods.
Happy Peering at reviews! We’ll see you at the platform.
Click here to register as a Peer Reviewer if not done already!