• Alessandro Pierno, Robert Fruscio, and Giacomo Bellani.
• Firenze University Press, Università di Firenze.
• Recenti Prog Med. 2017 Sep 1; 108 (9): 355-359.

AbstractSince several decades, peer review has become the standard to evaluate quality and priority of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals. During this process, manuscript is reviewed by scientists from the same field of the authors, with a competency on the topic of the manuscript (peer reviewers). Peer reviewers submit their comments to the journal editor, who then takes a decision on manuscript acceptance, need for revision of rejection. Several models for peer review exist, such as double-blind, single-blind, open, post publication. Hence the task of peer reviewer requires time, competency and carries a significant responsibility. Most peer reviewers perform these task as a service to the scientific community, but explicit recognition of this effort is still very limited. This has negative consequences on the publication process overall, since scientists often decline invitations to peer review and quality is not always ensured. In this article we overview the main options available for crediting peer reviewers for their efforts, focusing, in particular on the creation of a robust metrics able to attest the number and quality of peer reviews produced by this individual. This process implies the involvement of peer reviewers, journal editors and publishers and of a third, external, certification party. If implemented, this strategy could promote a virtuous circle, leading to an overall improvement of the process of peer review and ultimately of scientific publishing.

9 keywords...

hide…