Peer review is a process whereby experts in a particular field examine the work of a colleague in that same field. The intention is to encourage others to meet certain accepted standards in a specific discipline. Peer review encourages objective rather than subjective opinions about the ideas offered or research conducted by another. It is usually a fundamental step in the screening of written work or applications for funding submitted by individuals or organizations.
Types
Some level of peer review is almost always a requirement when written work is submitted for publication or proposals are submitted requesting grant funding. The work that editors do is a form of peer review for writers. Editors not only decide whether or not to publish an article or book, but they also determine what portions of the work might need to be modified before publication. Similarly, officials of funding agencies determine whether or not to fund a proposed project or program. These decisions usually lie with more than one reviewer, especially in the fields of academic or scientific research. In the majority of situations, peer review is a committee process.
Significance
Given that a single editor or grant reviewer cannot be an expert in every professional discipline, experts from a broad base of disciplines may be asked to review materials and then offer their opinions. Review by a team of peers also allows for more time to be devoted to evaluating a manuscript or proposal in order to judge the work fairly. In addition, peer review by more than one individual encourages a diversity of opinions so no single reviewer is responsible for judging all of the materials. This ensures that any work or proposals that are approved reflect more than one individual's opinion. The peer-review process is commonly used in the fields of medicine and law. Actually, trial by jury is one of society's most familiar forms of peer review.
Function
Peer review is used in all kinds of decision-making processes. Physicians and hospitals are routinely reviewed as a part of the credentialing process. Instructors and other educators are reviewed by their peers to help faculty members determine what changes might be needed in a particular curriculum, or in what areas teachers might need improvement. Peer-review processes in the classroom aid students by facilitating constructive comments by other students. Jury selection is another peer-review process, as jurors are responsible for analyzing the facts presented before rendering a verdict of guilt or innocence. Juries frequently play a large role in determining the consequences when a person on trial is convicted of a crime.
Considerations
Peer review has traditionally been the method employed to judge the quality of research. Some of the most widely accepted research has been known to have been judged via direct peer review. Advancement in the field of academia is normally based on having work published in a peer-reviewed publication like a professional journal. The assumption is that peers with similar experience in a certain field are better qualified to judge the work of a colleague, as the goal is to identify any problems with the work.
Misconceptions
Despite the many benefits of the peer-review process, critics worry that reviewers may not be qualified to offer a reliable opinion on a certain subject, may abuse their position, or may be biased in favor of well-known authors or researchers from prominent institutions. There is also the concern that reviewers may evaluate the work of competitors unfairly. Although these kinds of situations have been found to occur only infrequently, the process of peer review remains highly subjective, allowing for the possibility that some reviewers may base their decisions on an unconscious bias.
Theories/Speculation
There has been some speculation that the peer-review process may fail in cases in which reviewers are less likely to criticize ideas or work that are similar to their own professional and/or personal viewpoints. Yet peer review does appear to improve the quality of research, as well as prompt positive interaction among peers. In cases where the person submitting the work does not know the reviewer(s), criticism is often accepted more graciously, and the feedback offered is more likely to be included in the work. The most positive outcomes of peer-review processes seem to result when neither the reviewers nor the individuals or organizations being evaluated know each other.
Warning
In cases in which a peer-review process is being conducted to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of a fellow professional, all proceedings should be carefully documented. None of the reviewers should have current or past business or personal dealings with the individual being reviewed. In fact, in many situations, it might be better to use outside reviewers or hire a consulting service to conduct the review. All facts should be established and documented in writing.
