review

Howtopeerreview?

Generalideas

’iewer

shouldmaintainconfidentiality.（对所评阅的文章必须保密）

ideanhonest,criticalasssmentofthework.

Toanalyzethestrengthsandweakness,providesuggestionsforimprovement,

andclearlystatewhatmustbedonetoraithelevelofenthusiasmforthework.

（对文章的优缺点做出评论，并明确指出应该怎么修改才能提升现有的文章

质量）

iewershouldwritereviewsinacollegial,ully

wordedreviewwithappropriatesuggestionsforrevisioncanbeveryhelpful.（以

建设性的、学术性的口吻对文章进行评价，并给出建设性的修改再投递的意

见）

tyourcriticismsorpraiwithconcretereasonsthatarewelllaidoutand

logical.（给出的评价应该附加有支撑观点的具体原因）

5.评阅步骤：

(1)Readthemanuscriptcarefullyfrombeginningtoendbeforeconsideringthe

mpletenofthescopeandnovelty.

(2)Movetoanalyzingthepaperindetail,providingasummarystatementofyour

findingsanddetailedcomments.

(3)Uclearreasoningtojustifyeachcriticismandhighlightgoodpointsand

weakerpoints.

(4)Iftherearepositiveaspectsofapoorpaper,trytofindsomewayof

encouragingtheauthorwhilestillbeingclearonthereasonsforrejection.（如

果被拒绝的文章中有部分闪光点，可以鼓励作者。但是要坚持拒绝的观点）

(5)hpoint,indicatehowcriticalitis

toyouracceptingthepaper.（逐点详述你的评论，并针对没一点给出你所

能接收的文章的评判标准）

(6)Finally,givetheclearanswerastoyourrecommendationforpublication.!do

notgivearating.（在review的最后必须给出明确的关于接收与否的回答，

不要以百分度的形式给出不确切的答复）

Howtopeerreviewanarticle?

tonlargeissuesfirst（从整体上进行评价）

(1)Mainpointclearandinteresting?

(2)Isiteffectivelyorganized?

(3)Areideasadequatelydeveloped?

(4)Ividenceudproperly?

(5)Istherearchquestionclearandwelljustified?

(6)Isthetechnicalapproachlogicalandrigorous?

(7)Howstrongistheinferencefortheimportantconclusion?（得出结论的过程

是否牵强？）

(8)Aretheresultsclearandstatisticallyrigorous?

(9)Doesthediscussionflowlogicallyfromtheintroduction?

(10)Isthereaclearandrelevanttopicntenceforeachparagraph?

总的来说，主要是从全文的内容角度对文章的：结构组织性(wellorganized,good

structure)、逻辑性(logical)、严谨性(rigorous)、论据的合理性(justified,reasonable)、说

服力(convincing)等方面对文章进行总体评论。

smallerissueslater（对细节进行评价，包括每一段）

(1)Awkwardorconfusingntences

(2)Style

(3)Grammar

(4)Wordchoice

(5)Proofreading（校正）

(6)Clarityandcomprehensibilityofcontent

(7)Accuracy

(8)Readability—intermsoflogic,quencingandflow

(9)Consistency—inthecontentlanguageanduofkeyterms

总的来说，从细节部分考虑的主要是语言角度：纯从英语语言的角度对文章细节进行评

价，包括语法、词法、选词是否恰当、行文是否可读(read-friendly)、是否native-like

等。有的论文可以对文章的各部分进行分步细节性评论：introduction,materialand

method,result,discussion,conclusion.

tonwhethertheintroductionclearlyannouncesthetopicand

suggeststheapproachthatwillbetaken;

tonwhetherideasareclearandunderstandable

yyourownfeelingsaboutwhereyou’evi

toavoidthisstuck.

escribewhatyoueinthepaper:whatthemainpointand

organizationpatternyouthinkinthispaper.

fywhat’atcan

becut.

YESorNOquestionsareviewshouldincludeandelaboratedindetails

(Elaboratetheanswersonlanguageu,linguisticfeaturesandwording)

icletitleisappropriate.

tractaccuratelyreflectsthecontent.

poorthesisofthearticleisstatedclearly.

ported（声称的）significanceofthearticleixplicitlystated.

icleadequatelytiestotherelevantliterature.

earchstudymethodsaresoundandappropriate.

eraturereviewandrearchstudymethodsareexplainedclearly.

marythesisisarguedpersuasively.

tingisclearconciandinteresting.

ures,tables,andphotosarenecessaryandappropriate.

clusionsorsummaryareaccurateandsupportedbythecontent.

icleisofinteresttomanyURISAmembers.

ReviewerRecommendation:（最后给出的接收与否的结论）

Pleaindicatewhichofthefollowingactionsyourecommend.

()h,nosignificantalterationssuggested.

()h,butsuggestchangestothearticleasspecifiedinthis

review.

()h,butsuggestionsasspecifiedinthisreviewmustbe

addresdbyeithermakingchangesorexplainingwhychangeswouldbe

inappropriate

()Checkhereifalteredarticleshouldberesubmittedtothereviewer

(),butencourageauthortotryamajorrevisionandacond

peerreview

(),donotencouragearewrite

Samplesforpeerreview

OnJanuary22,2007,ConradMauclairandcolleaguessubmittedamanuscript

entitled“Quantifyingtheeffectofhumicmatteronthesuppressionofmercury

emissionsfromartificialsoilsurfaces”forconsiderationtothejournalApplied

uscriptwasntoutbytheeditortotwopeerreviewers,

iewersnt

commentstotheeditor,andafterconsideringthereviewers’comments,theeditor

chotoacceptthemanuscriptwithrevisions,andrespondedassuchtotheauthors

tsfromtheletterthe

editorwrotetotheauthorsdetailingthisdecisionareprintedbelow.

Editor返还给作者时的评论：总结出接收与否，并根据reviewer的意见提出editor

自己的观点。关键词：issuestobeaddresd

27May2007

DearAuthors:

Ihavereceivedtworeviewsofyourmanuscriptentitled

“Quantifyingtheeffectofhumicmatteronthesuppression

ofmercuryemissionsfromartificialsoilsurfaces”

additionIhavereadyourpaperandhavesomeadditional

iewersincludingmylfagree

thepaperafterrevisionsisacceptableforpublication.

Ihaveattachedbothreviewers’

reviewersraisomeimportantissuesthatneedtobeclearly

withtheirconcerns

andbelowhaveaddedafewothersthatneedtobeaddresd.

Sincerely,

EditorforSpecialIssueofAppliedGeochemistry

AdditionaldetailedcommentsfromtheEditor:

Themassbalanceneedstobeconsidered[asdetailedby

reviewer2].Myguessisyourflowrateisproducingan

todealwiththiswouldbeto

utheactualconcentrationdifferencebetweentheinletand

thedifferencebetweentheoutletandinletconcentrations

ratherthanflux.

Thereviewers’commentswereattachedtotheeditor’sletterwiththenamesofthe

aofjournalmanuscriptsacceptedwithrevision,the

authorshavetheopportunitytoreadandrespondtothereviewers’commentsand

aofgrantsubmissions,scientists

readthereviewerscommentsanduthetostrengthentheirsubmissionthenext

articlebyMauclairandcolleagues,thereviewers

hadanumberofrecommendationsforimprovingthearticle,astheexcerpts

providedbelowdetail.

Reviewer1对论文的评价：将整个review融合为一个整体，先从整体上评论（包括文

章的逻辑、结构以及对该领域的意义及其重要性），再深入到细节评论。

ExcerptsofcommentsfromReviewer1:

Thisrearcharticlereportsacontrolledlaboratory

experimentalstudytoprobetheroleofhumicmatterinHg

erimentsappeartoenjoysound

ultsarecertainlyvery

interestingandvaluable;thisstudywillstimulatemore

rearchtofurthertheexploration.

The“suppressionofmercuryemission”[inthetitle]isan

interpretationoftheexperimentalobrvations,ratherthan

tbebettertoua[more]

conrvativetitlelike“QuantifyingtheEffectofHumic

MatteronMercuryEmissionsfromArtificialSoilSurfaces”.

I’dthinkthereadermightcomeupwithsomedifferent

interpretationsotherthan“suppression”.

Would[additionalexperimentswith]controlsofhumicmatter

plusHg(II)saltonly(withoutanysand)offeranymore

[information]?

Reviewer2对文章的评价：也是先整体后局部细节。但是从总体上

时采用罗列的形式从各个角度评价文章是否达到了接收的标准（包括

组织性、逻辑性、可读性、重要性等）

ExcerptsofcommentsfromReviewer2:

Inrespontodirectcommentsrequestedbytheeditor:

Originality:Thispapersystematicallyteststhecombined

impactofhumicmattercontentandlightinsynthetic

wstudieshavereportedsimilarwork.

Importance:Thiswork’smainconclusionisthatorganic

conclusionisofsignificantinteresttomercury

biogeochemistsandmaypromoterelatedfield-bad

rearch,andhelpintheinterpretationofcurrentdata

ts.

Mannerofprentation:Thepaperisshort,clearandto

scussionofpossiblemechanismsand

moredetailsonrelatedfieldstudies(wherefluxesand

organicmatterhavebeencorrelated)couldbeadded.

Qualityoffiguresandtables:Idonotthinkthatthe

authorshavereachedanoptimaldesignforthegraphical

1,2&3couldbe

easilycombined,whichwouldhelpthereadertocompare

theresultstakenatdifferentintervalsforthesame

,thegraphscouldevenbe

transformedintimerieslinegraphs(insteadof

histograms).Iamnotsureofthemostattractivefinal

design,buttheprentdesigncanbeimproved.

Seriousflawsorcan[thepaper]beimprovedby

condensationordeletionofinformation:Ihavenot

ythatIamnottotally

ateawithastudythatreportsonlyresultsfrom

dhavebeennicetocomplement

thisdatawithsome«real»inkthatsuch

asystematic,laboratorystudyisufulandpertinent.

Doesthetitleandabstractcorrespondtothecontentof

themanuscript:Yes

Wouldyoubewillingtore-reviewthispaperafter

submissionwithrevisions:Notnecessary

Specificcommentsregardingthemanuscript:

authorscommentontherealismoftheirapproach?

Whatarethelimitsofusingsyntheticsoilsand

mixturesofinorganicHg+humicacids?Thefactthat

theytrieddifferentkindsofhumicmatteris

comforting,butIwouldhaveliketoemoreinfoon

potentiallimitations.

clarifythedesignforthelongterm

tance,werethelightsonfor

14daysinthe‘lighttreatment”?Wasthiscontinuous

fluxsufficienttodecreathepoolofHginthesample?

Thefollowingback[of]theenvelopecalculationsleft

meworriedbytheresultsprentedhere:

keanaveragefluxof2000ng/m2/hforthelight

+sandtreatment(efigures1,2and3),thenwegetover

14days[and]44µglostbyevasion,whereasonly25µg

wereadded!!

ctthatthelampswereonlyONduringthe

readings,onceeveryweek,butthisshouldbemore

foontheimpactofthefluxonthemass

ights

wereturnedOFFbetweenweeklyreadings,howlongwere

theyONforthereadings?

退后修改的整个来回过程

Oncecommentsarereceivedregardingamanuscript,itisuptotheauthorsto

addressthocomments,orincaswheretheydisagreewithareviewer’s

comment,provideanexplanationastowhytheyhavenotaddresdthecomment.

Intheaboveca,theauthor’saddresdthemajorityofthereviewers’comments

andntaletterbacktotheeditoronJune10,2007detailingthechangesmadeto

thearticleanddiscussingwhysomechangeswerenotmade:

July10,2007

DearEditors,

addresdallof

addition,atthesuggestionofreviewer1,wehaveconducted

additionalexperimentswith100%humicacidandhaveaddedthe

resultsofthixperimenttoourpapertoassurethatwehave

adequatelyaddresdtheexperimentaldesigncomments.A

detailedlistofallindividualchangesisincludedbelow.

Allofthelistedauthorshavereadtherevisionsandagree

withtheirconclusions.

Sincerely,

TheAuthors

Detailedlistofmanuscriptrevisions

ResponstocommentsraidbyReviewer1:

Asdirected,wehaverevidthetitleofthemanuscript

to“QuantifyingtheEffectofHumicMatteronthe

EmissionofMercuryfromArtificialSoilSurfaces.”

Thereviewerraisaninterestingquestionregardingthe

uofHg-humiccontrols(withoutsand),thecontrols

r,to

satisfythisquestionwehavesinceconducted

additionalexperimentswitha100%humicsampleusing

1ghumicandHgCl2sample(nosand).Theresultsfrom

thissamplewereconsistentwiththoprentedforour

5%humicsample,confirmingthattheeffectwesawwas

duetohumics,andnottheinteractionofhumicswith

addedthisdatatothepaperandto

Figure1.

ResponstospecificcommentsraidbyReviewer2:

WehavecondendtheprentationofdataintheFigures

assuggestedsothatonlyonepairofgraphsisnowud

(newFigure1)insteadofthethreepairsthatwereud

inthepreviousversionofthemanuscript(former

Figures1,2,and3).WehavealsoeditedFigures2and

3(formerlyFigures4and5)asrecommended.

betterqualifiedthelimitationsofthe

artificialsoilsysteminthediscussion.

ingthemannerinwhichsampleswerestoredbetween

measurements,wehaddetailedthisintheversionofthe

manuscriptsubmittedforreview,ourMethodsction

states“Allsampleswerestoredinthedarkatconstant

temperature(~23°C)betweenmeasurementsand

monitoredinbothdarkandlightformercuryfluxat

regularintervals.”Wehavetriedtoemphasizethis

statementintheresultsctionoftherewritten

manuscriptandwehaveaddedastatementthatallflux

measurementsweretakenovera1.5-2hrsamplingperiod.

sbalancecalculatedbytherevieweroverestimates

Hglossfromthesamplesashe/sheassumesthatthe

sampleswereexpodtolightcontinuously(epoint

#2above).Weconrvativelyestimatethatthemaximum

Hglossfromthesampleexhibitingthehighestemission

rate(sand-Hgonly)was30%ofthemercuryadded.

Humic-containingsamplesshowedmuchlowerHgloss.

eviewerstates,thesampleswerenotunderlight

continuouslyandthishasbeenclarifiedasperthetwo

pointsabove.

ResponstospecificcommentsraidbytheEditor:

Whileturnoverrateisasignificantissue,ourwork

reprentstherelativecomparisonofsamplesthatwere

allmeasuredataconstantturnoverrate,thusthe

effectofchamberturnoverrateonourconclusionsis

ssionofthishasbeenaddedtothe

forttoguidefuturerearch,we

haveaddedmentionofmorerecentpersonal

communicationregardingchamberturnoverrate,toour

knowledgenewdataregardingturnoverrateisnot

stionwasmadetoreportthe

differencebetweenchamberinletandoutletHg

ribedabove,

themassbalanceofHginthesamplesisnotproblematic.

Further,becauallCo-Cidifferencesaremultiplied

byaconstantturnoverrateinthefluxequation,this

wouldsimplyhavetheeffectofchangingthemagnitude

ofthenumbers(andgraphaxes)reported,notthe

relativedifferencebetweennumbers-whichisthebasis

,becauthe

majorityofrearchersreportresultsasfluxes,we

feelthatreportingourresultsasconcentration

differenceswouldmakethisworkinaccessibleto

hodologyandflux

measurementsareallbadonpeer-reviewed,published

literature(Lindbergetal.,2002)andfollowstandard

evediscussingthelimitationsofthe

methodisthereforesufficientinthiscontext.

ThecommentsfromReviewer2highlightthefactthatpeerreviewhelpsthe

scientificpublishingsystemtoassurethatmanuscriptsmeetcertainminimal

er2commentedontheoriginalityofthesubmission,the

perceivedimportanceoftheworkinthefieldofscience,themannerofprentation

ofthewritinginthetext,thequalityofthefiguresandtablesanddataanalysisin

general,whetherhe/shefoundanyriousflawsinthework,andspecificallythe

appropriatenessofthemanuscripttitleandabstractsincethearethepartsofthe

paperthatwillbecatalogedbyliteraturedatabas(eourScientificWriting:

Literaturemodule)ersmayrecommendthatauthors

clarifythetextoraddcertainreferencesthattheyhadnotpreviouslyconsidered;

theymightsuggestchangesbecautheyfeelthattheauthors’interpretationsare

notsupportedbytheirdata;theymayrecommendadditionalrearchtoclarify

questionablepointsinthestudy;ortheymayrecommendthatamanuscriptbe

rejectedcompletelybecauofquestionsabouttherearchmethods,data

collection,rly,grantproposalreviewersmaymakespecific

recommendationsforimprovingastudyandrecommendthattheauthorsresubmit

eviewers

mightalsorecommendthatmorebackgroundrearchbeconductedbeforethe

authorssubmittheirproposalagain,thatanotherscientistwithadifferentexperti

beincludedontherearchteam,orthatthescopeoftherearchbebroadened

(ornarrowed).

Mauclairandcolleaguesmadethemajorityofthechangesrequestedbythe

reviewerstotheirmanuscript,they:revidthetitle,addedadditionalexplanation

tothetext,andevenconductedadditionalexperimentstosatisfyaquestionraid

eviews,Reviewer2calculatedamassbalanceofmercuryin

theexperimentsandconcludedthatthesampleslostmoremercurythanwasadded

tothesystem;theeditorthenfollowedthiscommentwithasuggestionastowhy

thismighthaveoccurredandsuggestedreportingthedatainadifferentmanner.

Theauthorsaddressthiscommentbycorrectinganerroneousassumptionofthe

reviewer,andexplainwhytheyhavechonnottoreportthedatainadifferent

,whiletheydidnotfollowthesuggestion

madeinthereview,evid

manuscriptisresubmitted,theeditorreadstheauthors’respon,andifsatisfied

thattheauthorsadequatelyaddresdalloftheissuesraid,movesthe

manuscriptforwardinthejournal’cas,wheremajor

revisionsarerequired,theeditormayredistributethemanuscripttothepeer

clairmanuscript

wasacceptedforpublicationinAugust2007,itwasfirstpublishedonthejournal’s

websiteinJanuary2008,andfinallypublishedintheMarch2008issueoftheprinted

versionofthejournal(Mauclairetal.,2008).

Figure3:Partoffigure1fromMauclairetal.(2008).

Datahighlightedinredarefromnewexperiments

runinrespontothepeerreviewcomments.

ThisfigurewaspublishedinAppliedGeochemistry,

23(3),Mauclairetal.,594-601,CopyrightElvier

(2008).

Implicationsofpeerreview

Itisworthnotingthelengthytimescaleinvolvedinpublishingscientificarticles.

Fromtheinitialsubmissiontothefinalprinting,thedescribedarticletook14months,

whichdoesnotevenincludethetimespentdoingtheinitialworkthatledtothe

ggishnessofthepeerreviewprocessisoftencriticized,butit

reflectstheunderstandingthatpublishedworkentersthescientificliterature

permanently,asworkthatcanbebuiltuponbyotherscientists,andthusshouldbe

carefullyconsidered.

Additionally,journalsandfundingagenciesvaryintheirlectivityandrearch

uently,scientistschoowheretosubmittheirmanuscriptbadon

theperceivedimpactoftherearch,thelikelihoodofacceptance,andthesizeof

,reviewersconsidertheappropriatenessof

therearchtothejournal’mple,whilethejournalApplied

Geochemistryfocusonrearcharticlesthatdiscusschemicaltransformations

andprocessthattakeplaceintheenvironment,thejournalCellpublishesarticles

iclebyMauclairand

colleagueswaspublishedinAppliedGeochemistry;however,itwouldlikelyhave

beenrejectedbyCell.

Aspartofthescientificprocess,reviewersareexpectedtokeeptheinformationin

amanuscriptconfidentialuntilitispublished,butitisrarethattheworkcomesas

becaupeerreview

isintegratedintoalmosteverystepofscience,includingrequestsforpublicfunding

gdecisionsaremadebyacommitteeofpeerreviewscientists

whodebateeachproposal’slikelihoodofsuccess,thevalidityofitsapproach,and

earchmethodsandideas

publishedbyMauclairandcolleaguesin2008werereviewedaspartofagrant

submittedtotheRearchFoundationoftheCityUniversityofNewYork,whichwas

fundedin2005(Carpi&Frei,2005).Oncefunded,therearchbegins,and

lowsthefindingsto

atwere

eventuallyudinthemanuscriptwereprentedtothescientificcommunityin

August2006atalargeinternationalconferenceonthepollutantmercury(Mauclair

etal.,2006),andthusthefinalpublicationwasanticipatedbysomescientistsinthe

field.

Peer-reviewedpublicationsandfundedrearchproposalscarrysignificanceforthe

cas,hiring,promotion,

andawarddecisionsaremadeonthebasisofthenumberandqualityof

istsalso

benefitinmanywaysfromrvingaspeerreviewers-beingaskedtoreviewa

manuscriptorproposalisanacknowledgementofone’

scientistsbothreceivereviewsfromtheirpeersandreviewtheworkofothers,and

treportbytheRearchInformation

Networkestimatedthecostofvolunteeredtimeprovidedbyscientistsforpeer

reviewat$3.7billion(RearchInformationNetwork,2008).Sowhydoscientists

volunteersomuchtimetothisprocess?Becauitisoneoftheobligationsoftheir

professionandonefactorthathelpsbuildthecommunityofscience(eour

Scientistsmodule).

Oneofveralmechanismsofvalidatingscience

Peerreviewisjustoneofveralmechanismmbeddedwithintheprocessof

thelpstovalidatejournal

andgrantsubmissions,itisnotafool-prooffilterthatassuresqualityinscientific

publishing,especiallywhentheauthorsofastudyareengagedinfraudordeception

(eourScientificEthicsmodule).Forexample,between2000and2003,Jan

HendrickSchonandcolleaguespublishedover25papersonsuperconductivity,all

everalofthepaperswere

published,ProfessorLydiaSohnandProfessorPaulMcEuennoticedthatdifferent

experimentscarriedoutunderverydifferentconditionsandpublishedindifferent

papersdisplayedthesamebackgrounderror(Figure4).Whenconfrontedwiththe

problem,Schonfirstclaimedthatagraphhadbeenmistakenlyreproducedin

ythereafter,BellLabs,therearchinstitutewhereSchon

worked(eourScientificInstitutionsandSocietiesmodule),conductedan

investigation;theyfoundnumerousinstancesofmisconductandfraudand

tsixteenofSchon’spapershavesincebeen

declaredtobefal,andthejournalSciencehaswithdrawneightofhispapers(Bao

etal.,2002).

©AmericanAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience

enlargeimage

Figure4:AfigurefromSchonetal.(2001B)-istsfirst

notedproblemswiththepublicationwhenbackgroundnoiinthecurve

(highlightedinred)appearedidenticaltothatpublishedinadifferentpaper

(Schonatal.,2001A)

Whilecasofscientificmisconductcanbeembarrassingbecauofthepublicity

theyreceive,pectof

scienceisthatrearchresultsmustbereproducibleandwell-documented.

Instancesofscientificmisconductthathavegottenthroughthepeerreviewsystem

areoftenquicklyexpodwhenotherscientistsscrutinizethedataandattemptto

thissystemworking,scientificarticlesinclude

detaileddescriptionsofrearchprotocolsthatenableotherstoreproduce

experiments,andtheyincludetabularorgraphicalprentationsofdatasothat

theycanbescrutinizedbythecommunityatlarge(eourScientific

Communication:UnderstandingScientificJournalsandArticlesmodule).Oneofthe

firstpiecesofevidencethatraidsuspicionoverSchon’sworkwasthefactthat

other

occurredwithmostofSchon’spublications,scientificrearcharticlescanbe

retractediftheyarefoundtobeinerror(whetherornotthaterrorisaresultof

misconduct),thusremovingthemfromtheliteratureofscience.

Thetruthisthatretractionsarerare,andretractionsduetoscientificmisconduct

alysisofthescientificliteraturecatalogedintheMEDLINE

databamaintainedbytheNationalLibraryofMedicine,SaraNathandcolleagues

identified395articlesthatwereretractedinthetwodecadesfrom1982to2002out

ofover8.5millioncitationslistedintheMEDLINEdatabaforthatsameperiod

(Nathetal.,2006).Ofthoarticlesretracted,only27%werefoundtobecasof

scientificmisconduct,62%wereidentifiedasunintentionalerrors,and11%of

dcolleaguesalsofoundthatan

addition2,772erratawerepublishedduringthissameperiod,whicharesimple

correctionsofsmallmistakesinpublishedmanuscripts.

Conquencesofpeerreview

Oneoftheconquencesofthepeerreviewsystemisthatitcaninfluencethe

epeerreviewersthatmake

sthe

peerreviewersthatinfluencethetypesofrearchstudiesthatreceivefunding.

Thisisgenerallyapositiveeffectasitopenstheprocesstothescientificcommunity

mple,

somerearchershavesuggestedthatpeerreviewerscanbebiadinfavorof

rearchthatreportspositiveeffects(ugxhasaneffect)overrearch

reportsthatreportanoeffect(asnosignificanteffect)(Callahametal.,

1998).Thus,publishedstudiesshowingpositiveeffectsfaroutnumberones

rcomplicationthataffectsthepeerreviewprocessisthatina

clodreviewsystem,wherereviewersarekeptanonymousfromtheauthors,itis

possibleforreviewerstopassunnecessarilyharshjudgment–orunworthyprai–

onamanuscriptorapplicationforfunding,simplybecautheyhavepersonal

differencesorfriendshipswithauthors.

Thewidespreaduofelectronicpublishinghaspromptedarecentre-evaluationof

cientistsstilllargelyagreeonthevalue

ofpeerreview,theyaresometimesdiscouragedbythelengthoftimeinvolvedfrom

submissionofamanuscript,throughreview,revision,andresubmission,whichmay

takeayearormore–ult,some

authorshavesuggestedthatthetime-consumingandclodpre-publicationpeer

reviewprocessbeabandonedentirelyinfavorofopenaccess,onlinepublishingthat

rofscientificpublishingmediaare

mple,thePublicLibraryof

Science(PLoS)projectpublishesanumberofjournalsinthePLoSfamilythatmake

theirformalpeerreviewsavailabletothepublicandthentheyfurtherprovidea

mechanismforadditionalpubliccommentandreviewofpublishedarticlesontheir

ejournalNature,whichhasbeenpublishedforover130years,has

recentlyexperimentedwithopenaccesspeerreviewforsubmittedmanuscripts.

PublicationswithoutPeerReview

mple,

manyjournals,includingScienceandNature,publishnewsandcommentary

ctionsinwhichtheyprovideweeklyupdatesonmajorscientificeventsorissues.

Anumberofjournalsalsopublish“letters.”Letterstojournalsincludecommentary

onpreviouslyprintedarticles,buttheymayalsoreportnew,preliminaryand

intriguingscientificresultsthathavenotyetbeentestedandreplicatedenoughto

passfullpeerreview.

Scient

example,asaprodigiouswriterand

becamewellknownforhisbooksandmagazinearticlesontopicsrangingfrom

oreticalphysicistStephenHawkingiswellknownfor

hisbooksaimedatexplainingcosmology,whichincludesuchpopulartitleslikeA

astronomerCarlSagan

notonlywrotenumerouspopularmagazinearticles,butalsoauthoredthe

best-llingbookContact,iclesand

booksthatscientistswriteforsourcesotherthanpeer-reviewedjournalshavean

important,butverydifferent,

piecesareoftendirectedatexplainingscienceinmorecommonlanguageto

non-scientistsandthusrveacrucialroleindescribingtheimpactofsciencetothe

generalpublic(eourTheBenefitsandOutcomesofSciencemodule).Assuch,

theyaregenerally,butnotalways,badonthepeer-reviewedliteraturethatforms

thebasisofourscientificknowledge.