Scientific article review process: pros and cons

Article Sidebar

Full Text – Download Free PDF (Italiano)
Published: Jun 30, 2021
Keywords:
Review, Peer Review, Reviewer, Ethics Committee

Main Article Content

Valentina Fiano
S.C. Epidemiologia dei Tumori, Università degli Studi di Torino - ITA
Laura De Marco
S.C. Epidemiologia dei Tumori, CPO Piemonte, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - ITA

Abstract

The most widely used method to disseminate, within the scientific community, studies and results obtained by research groups is the publication of an article in peer-reviewed journals.


The publication process, however, is regulated by certain rules which need to be observed not only by the person who writes the article (Author), but also by the person who judges it (Reviewer).


Today, the enormous number of articles presented to the different scientific journals is that the Reviewers have an essential role in helping the Editors to control and verify the large amount of scientific data and information provided.


Therefore, it is to underline the importance of regulating the revision work in terms of competence, awareness of professional duties towards the journal and the Authors and the correctness towards the Authors.


As well as being Knowledgeable of the ethical implication of the scientific research and its work.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Fiano, V., & De Marco, L. (2021). Scientific article review process: pros and cons. Journal of Biomedical Practitioners, 5(1). Retrieved from https://ojs.unito.it/index.php/jbp/article/view/5941
Issue
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2021)
Section
Journal article

The authors agree to transfer the right of their publication to the Journal, simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution that allows others to share the work indicating intellectual authorship and the first publication in this magazine.

References

[1] Tennant JP. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2018 Oct 1;365(19):fny204. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fny204. PMID: 30137294; PMCID: PMC6140953.
[2] Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3. PMID: 17443635.
[3] Fraser D. The Art of Peer Review. Neonatal Netw. 2018 Jul;37(4):195-196. doi: 10.1891/0730-0832.37.4.195. Epub 2018 Jul 1. PMID: 30567915
[4] Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):698-704. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.687488. Epub 2012 May 30. PMID: 22643022.
[5] Quality in peer review. Commun Biol. 2019 Sep 20;2:352. doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0603-3. PMID: 31552304; PMCID: PMC6753117.
[6] https://www.aifa.gov.it/documents/20142/1123276/Comunicazione_gestione_studi_clinici_in_emergenza_COVID-19_17.09.2020.pdf.