Peering, viewing and reviewing: What makes a Peer review good

Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics 3 (2):119-124 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Peer review is an integral part of an ethical scientific publication process. Though not perfect, it has not been replaceable in the last couple of centuries since the advent of scientific journals. Recent innovations include online anonymized credits for peer review that can be used to augment an academician’s resume. Submissions and retraction are ever growing, increasing the demands from peer reviewers. The rewards may not seem commensurate but any person of science should contribute to peer review as a guardian of science. This short review looks at the ideal peer review along with inherent challenges. It makes suggestions on how novice and intermediate reviewers can improve their contributions as well as introduces various resources relevant for peer review.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-08-07

Downloads
7 (#1,636,277)

6 months
4 (#1,233,928)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references