Using an Ecclesiastical Approach to the Scientific Peer Review Process?
There is an interesting op-ed blog on The-Scientist.com outlining problems with the current world of scientific peer reviewing in the plethora of electronic journals today and the nature of the research itself:
Opinion: An Ecclesiastical Approach to Peer Review
Can the teachings of the Early Church be used as a model of the modern scientific peer review process? Or are the authors of this op-ed really just using ecumenical jargon to make a point?
 |
| (Please note the comic strip is courtesy of http://www.lutheranism101.com/.) |
I find this article honest and timely. This past weekend I was assigned to review articles and I did not meet the standard. Exhaustion and sickness led to half-hearted work. This article recalled the true reason behind review and that is improvement. As a writer staring in front of a document, one can overlook minor details in the overall picture. Peer reviewers are to provide a fresh sense of eyes and an open mind that the article may be understood and relatable. This is accomplished by respect and honesty. An individual must respect the author enough to put forth effort in their review. Secondly, they must be honest. Sparing someone current emotional distress is not beneficial, it's detrimental. If you do not critique, writers are not born. However, the main goal must always be kept in sight and that is improvement. Mistakes will be made, but learning from those mistakes with the assistance of you peers creates a beautiful learning opportunity. The Golden Rule cannot be more accurate in this article, "Do to others as you would have them do to you". Respect the paper. Respect your peers.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I have no experience in trying to submit a scientific paper, as some of my peers do, I can speak to the everyday usage of peer review. I constantly find myself writing, whether that be poetry, fiction, academic, or preparing a sermon, I am always trying to get my thoughts and work into the most self-explanatory manner. However, I am not always the best set of eyes for that process.
ReplyDeleteStarting from an early age we learn the power of having someone else review our work before it is submitted. I remember going to my mother in 4th grade with my science project paper just to watch her annihilate it with her legendary red pen. However, it was done in a way that was demeaning or detrimental but was constructive.
Although I plainly see the difference between a 4th graders science paper and a scientific article looking to be submitted into a reputable journal, I think some of the same concepts should still be applied.
This author did a good job of hitting the main points in a constructive manner but I really believe that his whole article could have been summarized in simple saying respect the other person enough to try to help them. This encompasses being timely, honest, kind but firm, and constructive (not laundry listing the problems but explaining them). As I try to help others in this manner I expect the same to be done for me. I find it appropriate to end an “ecclesiastical approach” with their quote from Christ, “Do unto others as you would have them do for you.”
PS, This is the 3rd response I have typed… The other two were deleted when I tried to submit them, pardon the brevity.
The theme throughout the article was well chosen. I believe the article presented great points on improving the peer review process in regards to reviews. Some of the best points in the article talk about how reviewers should follow the golden rule. The reviewer should review papers as if they had written the paper themselves. I believe this is critical to maintaining a healthy scientific community. Without honest and fair reviews the peer review process can become ineffective. The article stresses that it is also important to be considerate in your comments and suggestions as a reviewer. This is the best way to ensure that the author understands the suggestions from the reviewer. Being considerate also helps the author have a clear understanding of the critiques without being biased from a hurt pride. One problem I have with this article was its solution for dealing with the increasing complexity of scientific papers. The article mentions that reviewers should perform all necessary background research to fully understand the papers they are reviewing. However, this is not always a feasible option. The reviewer may not have the time to fully research a subject for each paper they have to review. This can lead to reviewers being lazy and simply skipping over important sections of the paper. I believe this is one of the biggest problems with the peer review process. There is not always enough time for a reviewer to do a thorough job for each paper that comes across their desk.
ReplyDeleteI found this article very interesting, as it gave me more insight into the peer review process for journal articles. I also think the symbolism throughout the article (Early Church teachings) was an entertaining twist to keep the reader more involved and interested. Speaking to the actual content of the article, I found it refreshing that the very first piece of advice given was to stick to "the golden rule" that we've all been taught as children. I personally have never gone through the peer review process, but I had the opportunity this summer to talk with scientists who have. From the stories they shared, the golden rule does not seem to be commonly followed by reviewers. This is unfortunate, because comments that are simply a blow to the author's intelligence and hard work can be detrimental to the confidence of the author, especially if they are young in their career. To follow with this article's ecclesiastical theme, the scientific community should be using their words to build each other up rather than tearing each other down. I am confident that many reviewers do follow this, using their influence and intelligence to help improve each article and, in turn, help the author develop their skills. If every reviewer were to stick to this golden rule, I believe the peer review process would be greatly improved.
ReplyDeleteIt is a great idea to have many different editors peer review, since they can catch minor flaws that the author does not see. Peer reviewers should help make the article more appealing to different audiences. If they are not doing this, then people would less likely to read it. Peer reviewers should give constructive criticism to help the writers grow. Therefore, it should be a requirement to constructively criticize someone's work,however, it is important to remember to respect others work. Most likely, the author put in a lot of time and effort into their article. The best thing to do is to constructively criticize their article and encourage them to keep up the good work. 1: Thessalonians 5:11, "Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing."
ReplyDeleteI found this quite funny, actually.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be some revision to the review process; however, there is a reason that people are strict in their reviews and I think there should be a balance. Sometimes people misperceive honesty, but I don't think people should hold back from telling the truth. There should be no candy-coated reviews. These articles are being published in major journals and their work needs to be reflective of that, but I also don't think that they should be unnecessarily rude in their reviews. For instance, it would be unnecessary for the reviewer to call the author an “idiot” for misplacing a modifier or using a comma somewhere there ought to be a semi-colon.
I like how they refer to the review process as an art, since it is such a tedious process that requires so much attention to detail. They outline the necessity of being civil, thoughtful, respectful, and relevant. They dive into some Old Testament principles about timeliness, thoroughness, and seven things which authors hate. Furthermore, they touch upon a little New Testament truth and talk about the resurrection (the second review process). If Jesus rose from the dead in three days, you can certainly do a second review and get it back with plenty of time to spare.
Overall, this is meant to be a very helpful outline of properly and practically peer reviewing an article, and I think they successfully got their point aCROSS (pun very much intended). They did a wonderful job at explaining why each point is so important, plus they added some good-hearted humor, which helped make it easier to read. I think their suggestions are viable and obviously well thought through; although I am curious as to how they initially decided upon this approach… Was it a supernatural, Holy Spirit revelation while they were doing devotions in Ecclesiastes? These are the important questions.
I thought this was a great article all reviewers should consider reading. It‘s a great guideline all reviewers should use, whether in a professional sitting or in the classroom. Peer reviewing is a must in order to make sure only the absolute best work is being published. It is good reviewers maintain a very high standard, but these are professionals and they should approach it like a professional. There is no reason for being rude towards the author/ authors. The purpose is to help not to discourage the authors. Although this may not be accepted in the scientific community, I believe Luke 6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you" should be one of the guidelines. This is not to say the reviewer should be soft, but to be thorough and as helpful as s/he would like others to be if the role was reversed. This article also reminds me of how hard it is to be a Christian scientist. I can't imagine how difficult it is for any creationist to publish scientific article that is peer reviewed. I am sure the comments they receive and the standard there work is scrutinized isn't very pleasant. This also makes wonder the peer reviewer’s selection process. I am sure they have to be experts in the area, but what criteria’s are considered when selecting these reviewers and who selects the reviewers?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this is a great article that reviewers can use to review their own review process. It brings to mind the idea that those who are revising work should not be exempt from revision of their own work. This is, in fact, the very principle that the United States government was founded upon: Checks and balances, even to include checks of those doing the checks. Though this process has been severely misused in today's society, the principle remains a good one. Those in charge of reviewing others should themselves undergo the same rigorous scrutiny as those they have the privilege of judging. Why would government officials subject citizens to programs that they themselves are exempt from?
ReplyDeleteJust as government has corrupted this principle in modern times, I believe that peer review in general has also corrupted it. In the article, the 7th of the "7 deadly sins of sub-par reviewers" is that of belligerent or dismissive language indicative of a hidden agenda. Immediately I am brought to the realization that the atheistic, macro-evolutionary worldview (which could be argued a religion in and of itself) that is prevalent in modern scientific circles is vehemently opposed to any science that could disagree with their worldview. As such, it becomes extremely difficult for legitimate science that would seem to disagree with macroevolutionary theory to be published in peer-reviewed journals because of the inherent bias of the reviewers toward anything that opposes their own religion.
One case that comes to mind is an intriguing example where a young earth creationist found soft tissue in a fossilized Triceratops horn supposed to be over 60 million years old. In this case, he was eventually able to get his findings published. (1) However, as a result of his findings, this published scientist of over 30 years was fired by his employer, California State University, Northridge. He then sued the employer, after which court records state that CSUN told Armitage shortly after his termination that “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!” (2)
Such an instance is a source of potential concern for the review process, because such personal bias could prevent legitimate scientific findings from being presented and legitimized. I think that the Ecclesiastical approach presented in the initial article is a good guideline for reviewers to follow to help ensure that only high-quality articles are published, but especially to prevent worldview or religious bias from withholding accurate, rigorous, high-quality scientific articles to be published, regardless of their possible implications for any given religion or worldview.
1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065128113000020
2. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/
Great read! This article has given me more appreciation for journal articles seeing that I know a little bit more about the work that goes into it. I loved how the author referred to the process as an art. Like all art, a considerable amount of time and effort needs to be put into the work. I think that it is important that reviewers take the job seriously because this is information is going to be highly trusted by researchers who are going to use this information. Becoming apathetic in the review process may lead to inconsistencies in other fields of science.
ReplyDeleteSo many times while writing/reading our own papers we can miss things. It is always helpful to have someone else review the topic in an effort to enhance the quality of the work at question. While doing this reviewers have to be careful because I do believe that there is a fine line between being constructive and being critical. The goal is to enhance the quality of the article so that the information can be handed to the audience in a professional and comprehendible manner, not to assault the intelligence of the writer.
One thing I have learned from my capstone and biochemistry papers is that the more individuals peer reviewing my paper, the better. I understand with any individual there can be bias regardless if it was intentional or not. Multiple people can see different errors throughout the work of an article. I have seen this firsthand with peer reviews of my own. In those situations my fellow peers have been nothing but constructive. They have not blatantly torn down my writing, but have only built up the foundation on which I started. Assaulting a writer is not the goal or peer reviewing, taking note of error to better the overall work is the best interest of both parties. If being critical for personal bias is your end game, then you are only injuring your integrity, Keeping the sanctity of the peer review process will keep your conscience and science in general clear. This will only benefit the scientific community,
ReplyDeleteThis article offers a refreshing look at the peer review process and reminds us that certain rules of conduct should be observed in critiquing scientific work. Over the years, technology has drastically changed the meaning of “scientific articles” and work that is deemed scientifically and scholastically acceptable. As the article pointed out, many scientific journals are now published on the web and information is becoming more widely accessible than ever before. In light of these changes, it is extremely important that reviewers and authors alike share delineated codes of moral and academic honesty. Above all else, critics must follow the “Golden Rule” by criticizing the author’s work as they themselves want to be criticized. This should be done with beneficence and understanding and also with the author’s best interest in mind. Critics should be well prepared to offer valid criticism by having at least some prior knowledge of the subject through background research. This article is a bit outdated in its approach to electronic databases…..It seems to portray this new development in an unfavorable light. Besides that, however, this is a very interesting article that reminds me why the peer review process is important.
ReplyDeleteSuch a relationship between God-associated processes and modern practices leading to positive outcomes does not surprise me at all. In all actuality, it makes sense and would seem of great benefit when applied appropriately. God is Creator. If anyone knows how to put things into proper order, it is the creator of creation. In the case of the universe, in the perspective of a believer, God is the Creator. So why not apply the “instructions” and “models” that the Creator has proposed? God is also Father – He cares for His children, as an Earthly father loves his children. Therefore, whatever He proposes would be out of love and care for His children – not to create burdens and pain. Applying order to the peer review process in accordance to how God has established other systematic occurrences (such as that of the early church, which is periodically still used to this day) should lead to optimal outcomes, as described in the article.
ReplyDeleteAs junior who is about to start writing his honors thesis paper, this was a good article to "review" before I start sifting through the endless amounts of journal articles and peer reviewed studies. This paper allowed me to gain an appreciation for and made me aware of just how necessary good peer review journal articles are. Additionally, as an individual who wishes to go further on in science, there might come a day when I am asked to offer suggestions and give feedback to someone's study. This should be a task that should not be taken lightly and should be handled with great intentionality. I won't need to have all the right answers, but I will need to offer relevant, thought-provoking, and necessary critique and insight to help the author move forward in the publication process. This overview paired good humor to get a very pertinent point across, and it will be information that will stick with me.
ReplyDelete