Peer Review

pr

Peer review is the evaluation of work submitted by single or multiple people of same or similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). The review process in Science Caliber for its different journals is carried out by corresponding peers who follow publication ethics and common good practices of article reviewing. Science Caliber relies on qualified members of a profession/trade/major/stream within the relevant field. Peer review practices and methods are adopted in order to maintain standards of quality, verifying authenticity of furnished data and hence making an article credible. There are various methods of peer review with their names as explained below-

Single Blind Review

The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author.

Advantage:
Reviewer anonymity Reviewers make impartial decisions as no influence is free from influence by the author.

Disadvantages:
Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer the opportunity to publish first.

Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author’s work.

 

Double Blind Review

Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.

Advantages:
Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author’s country of origin or previous controversial work.

Articles written by ‘prestigious’ or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author’s reputation.

Disadvantage:
It is uncertain whether a paper can ever truly be ‘blind’ – especially in specialty ‘niche’ areas. Reviewers can often identify the author through the paper’s style, subject matter or self-citation.

 

Open Review

Reviewer and author are known to each other.

Advantage:
Some scientists feel this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from drawing upon their own ‘agenda’ and encourage open, honest reviewing.

Disadvantage:
Others argue the opposite view. They see open review as a less honest process in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For example, junior reviewers may hesitate to criticize more esteemed authors for fear of damaging their prospects. Independent studies tend to support this.

 

At Science Caliber, for its journals we have adopted a Double Blind Review system so as there is no influence of authors as well as reviewers on the review process and it remains completely honest and no manipulation is possible.