Why is the process of peer review so important?
Why is the process of peer review given so much importance despite the drawbacks faced by the system (discussed in more detail later in this article)? Most scientists favor the use of the peer review system for the assessment of research papers and grant applications and are reluctant to end its use due to various reasons such as • The reviewers’ comments on the research proposal in a grant application or on the work presented in the submitted manuscript contribute to improving the quality of the proposed research or manuscript. • By participating (as reviewers) in the process of peer review, senior scientists can help to maintain and set standards of quality for research work in a particular field. • Unlike open access review, the author is assured that, in the traditional peer review process, the reviewers’ comments have been made by those best qualified to comment on the work. • An article which is published after having undergone a process of peer review can be considered as having
Related Questions
- Well, how about in terms of the process you described earlier of an idea trying to get started? Can peer review serve to stultify that starting of a new theory in the professional community?
- Did the GEO-4 report undergo a peer review process? How were comments from reviewers addressed in the drafting of the GEO-4?
- How does the peer review process work?
