In the peer review cycle, the first important point is conducting the actual research. This is imperative because it helps one to have a critical perspective of the issue at hand and how its implication on the field of study. This acts as a determinant of the next steps in the review and future publication of the study findings. The second critical point is the collection, gathering, analyzing, and interpretation of the data (Peer Reviewed Journals, n.d.). This helps in establishing the reality or the actual knowledge that exists. It acts as the first step in determining the direction of the research, i.e., whether or not it can be presented to the editor and further review of the study and how the findings contribute to the field. Thus, it forms a basis of consideration when submitting the manuscript to the editor and its possibility to be forwarded to the peer reviewers.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
An editor is concerned about the creativity, content, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript to the knowledge of the field. This is unlike the peer reviewer who is an expert and employs critical analysis to find out whether the manuscript adds a new thing to the research field (Peer Reviewed Journals, n.d.). Also, unlike the editor, the peer reviewer verifies the study process by exploring the relevance of the research methodology employed. Another difference is that the peer reviewers carry out a blind review because they have no knowledge about the writer of the manuscript. Based on this information, the article “Involving the Health Care System in Domestic Violence: What Women Want” by Usta et al. (2013) was peer-reviewed. For it to have been published in the Annals of Family Medicine journal, it must have been subjected to the peer review cycle and accepted for publication. The peer-reviewed information for this class can be found in different databases that publish peer-reviewed articles, such as Pubmed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHAL.