The Peer Review Cycle Analysis | Free Essay Example

The Peer Review Cycle Analysis

Words: 643
Topic: Sciences
Updated:

Peer Review has got explicitly very necessary steps. It is the best process that one can refer anyone who wants his or her work to gain acceptance worldwide. There are various important things about this cycle. The researcher has to have a new idea. Research is useful for answering a question or questions. Those questions are the ones that enable a researcher to get the best concept of that to research.

Literature review is also one important aspect of the cycle. One has to identify what his or her peers have done on the topic. It helps one to build a foundation on what has already happened but expound on it or start something new. After others have worked on it, it becomes easier to introduce the new aspect to them (Shatz, 2004).

In order to succeed one must find out if there are enough funds or if one needs to secure funding for the same. Research is costly and time-consuming. For any success to be realizable, one needs to complete the work one has started. And therefore funding is necessary. It also requires one to put in all effort that is required to hit the goals one has created.

Interpretation of the data has to be up to standard because it provides the needed information to realize if it is worth taking the initiative. Conferences help to provide useful feedback. The researcher has to ensure that the data is clearly understandable and that the conference can be able to ask and answer some questions. The meeting input enables one to prepare the findings as a manuscript for publication.

One also has to find an editor of the suitable journal. It enables the experts in the field of research to review it with clarity. They have to analyze it before allowing it to go for publishing so that the journal can have quality work. The content must be suitable. The researcher must portray creativity in the one he or she has completed. The editor must also see to it that the manuscript contributes positively to the knowledge of the field.

The peer reviewers must find what new thing one is introducing to the field. Although it is time-consuming and too involving, the process is very crucial to ensure the validity of research.

The editor is the one who approves one’s work. The reviewers only recommend to the editor their findings. Once the editor confirms the work to be okay, he or she sends it for publishing. The editor can also reject it based on the results. Approximately 90% of reviews are dismissed. But the writer can take it and revise then take it back for the process to begin again.

There is a difference between an editor and a peer reviewer. The editor is the one who receives the manuscript and screens it. The editor makes the decision on what to do with the manuscript; reject or forward for review. The peer reviewer only makes recommendations to the editor after carefully analyzing the work.

Once the editor receives the recommendations, they make the final decision on the work. The writer knows the author while the peer reviewer may or may not know the author. The editor works together with the author to complete the task, but the reviewer only works with the publisher.

The article of the week was peer reviewed. It had to go through a team of qualified persons in the field before gaining acceptance. They analyzed it and gave their recommendation for acceptance or rejection.

Majority of peer-reviewed information is in the journals that address particular fields. Some magazines also can assist to find such works. The editors of these magazines and journals ensure quality work and hence good for anyone in the area to find help in them. There are also websites that address the Art and Design issues.

References

Shatz, D. (2004). Peer review. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Web.