In general, researchers who belong to research institutions are required to widely publicize the results of their research across the globe. Various methods are used to do so and it is vital for researchers to have a good understanding of each method of publication. A process called peer review is frequently used when publishing the results of research.
Peer review is a fundamental technique for managing and improving the quality of research. The term “peer review” means “review by one’s equals.” Peer review in the context of research refers to the process of having one’s article or research funding application evaluated by a researcher in the same field.
Peer review plays an important role in supporting the evaluation of research, not only in decisions on acceptance for publication in academic journals and the provision of research funding, but also in the hiring and promotion of researchers and the evaluation of universities and research institutions. Some academic societies carry out peer reviews of applications to give oral presentations or poster presentations at academic conferences. Although peer review is the foundation of autonomous decision-making by researchers, key ethical issues can sometimes arise. It is an important principle that reviewers should treat all information gained through the peer review process as confidential and act as responsible scientists. If there is a possibility of an ethical issue arising in the peer review process, the reviewer must contact the person who requested the review (editor or research funding organization) without delay and seek their instructions.
In science and engineering, just as in other fields, the greatest importance is attached to the compilation of research findings into articles for academic journals. This is because journals apply the peer review system described below with the greatest rigor. Accordingly, they are regarded as a guarantee of the quality of the article, to a certain extent, and the academic community therefore places a high degree of trust in their content.
There are various academic journals and those with the highest academic reputation generally have very stringent peer reviews. Whereas academic journals used to be an entirely paper-based medium sent to paying subscribers, some now publish electronic editions simultaneously and the number of journals published solely as electronic media is increasing. Some electronic journals are open access journals, meaning that anyone can read them free of charge.
As publishing journals electronically is easy, predatory publishing in pursuit of profits from publication fees has become rampant. Under this business model, researchers looking for an easy way to increase the number of articles they have published are induced to pay an article processing charge in return for a lax peer review process. The academic journals that publish such articles are called predatory journals. Publication in predatory journals may be regarded as a deliberate attempt to pad out your achievements and consequently may be treated as an ethical issue, so your institution may not count such publications or may even impose a penalty for them. Before submitting an article, you should check with your institution whether the journal you are submitting to is suspected of being a predatory.
However, there is no unified opinion on the attribution of copyright or the ethical, economic, and operational issues of open access journals. In light of such recent developments and innovations in information technology, some publishers have are revising their existing provisions on the assignment of copyright.
Costs associated with publishing journals were hitherto borne by universities, research institutions, and individuals in the form of subscription fees. In the case of open access journals, however, there are various means of ensuring the stability of publication, such as having the authors or their institutions pay publication fees. Even in the case of traditional (subscription-based) journals, some publishers and academic societies offer authors the option of providing open access to their article alone if they pay a fee equivalent to the cost of publishing the article. Some journals have instituted a page charge, which is a printing fee charged to authors instead of charging for article processing. It is difficult to strike a balance between an author’s desire for the article they and their colleagues have written to be read by as many people as possible without hindrance and the need for someone to cover the costs of the peer review, editing, and publishing processes that are essential to its publication. The debate around this tricky problem looks set to continue for some time, along with arguments about the fundamental rights of authors to hold the copyright to their articles in the first place.
In many fields of science and engineering, papers presented at international conferences are second in importance only to articles in academic journals. Among academic societies in the fields of science and engineering, there is a culture of publishing presenters’ papers in a collection called “proceedings.” The length of these papers differs from one academic society to another, but they may be required to be comparable in length to a journal article. As such, the presentation of a paper at an international conference is regarded as a substantial achievement.
International conferences frequently refer papers for peer review. In some cases, peer review may be carried out based solely on an abstract submitted beforehand, whereas in others, the presenter may be required to submit the whole paper ahead of time for peer review and inclusion in the conference proceedings. Some academic societies are so competitive that only around 30% of papers are accepted; in such cases, the latter form of peer review is common. Papers for international academic societies with a low acceptance rate are frequently considered equivalent to articles in academic journals and may sometimes even be regarded as even more prestigious.
In most cases, conference proceedings are published at the same time the conference takes place. Accordingly, papers may sometimes be published in the proceedings without the actual presentation taking place at the conference. In recent years, there have been frequent instances of researchers merely submitting their paper for a conference in order to increase their number of publications, but not actually delivering it at the conference—a practice known as a “no-show.” This term also covers the increasingly common practice of putting up a poster for a poster presentation but not appearing to explain it, which is sometimes known as “post and run.”
Naturally, such conduct subverts the essential function of an academic conference. If you have indicated your intention to give a presentation by submitting a paper for an international conference, you have a responsibility to deliver that presentation at the conference. If you are unable to deliver the presentation due to unavoidable circumstances, you should send someone to give the presentation on your behalf or contact the organizer beforehand to request the withdrawal of your presentation.
If a paper submitted for the proceedings of an international conference is published on paper or online and is of a length comparable to a journal article, rather than just an abstract of the presentation’s content, submitting a manuscript with the same content to an academic journal in the form of an original article may be regarded as duplicate submission and therefore problematic. Given tougher responses to duplicate submission in recent years, it is advisable to check the relevant academic society’s provisions regarding duplicate submission and, if you have any concerns, to report to the editorial committee any related papers you have presented when submitting your article.
Aside from articles in academic journals and papers at international conferences, the most familiar form of academic publication is presentations at Japanese academic society meetings (proceedings may or may not be published). In addition, research papers are increasingly being published in repositories (databases for the systematic storage of data and information) such as arXiv, which attach primary importance to speed of reporting. Whereas arXiv is a subject-based repository that gathers papers together by research topic, there are also institutional repositories run by research institutions.
While the purpose differs from ordinary academic publication, patent applications could be described as one form of publishing the results of research. If you wish to acquire patent rights, you need to file a patent application before publishing, as a general rule. Although it is possible to have the provision regarding exceptions to the lack of novelty (Article 30 of the Patent Act) applied if no more than one year has passed since publication, there may be various constraints, including in cases where you wish to file an application overseas. You must also bear in mind that it takes a certain amount of time for a patent to be published after the application is filed (in Japan, it is a year and a half, as a general rule).
Peer review is the primary method by which academic societies ensure the quality of articles appearing in academic journals and funding organizations make decisions on applications for research funding. For peer review to function, all researchers must understand the basic perspectives underpinning peer review. For example, a reviewer might be too busy to complete a peer review by the designated deadline. In that situation, withdrawing from the peer review is the appropriate option.
The limitations of peer review’s functions in guaranteeing the quality of articles and the possibility that it could impede the publication of or funding for innovative research are the subjects frequently debated. However, there are no practical methods to replace peer review (however, various improvements have been proposed or are being implemented). Without peer review, the quality of articles in academic journals would probably decline and good research could well end up being buried. Without peer review, however imperfect it might be, there would be no way of identifying outstanding research plans and providing funding for high-quality research. While it is not the purpose of peer review, there are cases in which research misconduct is discovered during the peer review process.
There are a few types of peer review. Open peer review refers to a situation in which neither the reviewers nor the authors are anonymous. In the single blind system, the names of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, but the authors’ names are known to the reviewers. In the double blind system, both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous. The purpose of the double blind system is to avoid the impartiality of peer review being impaired by an author’s position or their relationship to the reviewer, but there is a possibility that a reviewer might be able to identify an author’s name by such means as an internet search. The single blind system tends to be most commonly used in the fields of science and engineering. Reviewers under the single blind system may be able to surrender their anonymity.
Academic societies carry out peer reviews of posters and manuscripts for oral presentations submitted before academic conferences. Such peer reviews tend not to be as stringent as those for publication in academic journals. A comparatively new form of peer review is publication of a paper by an author on a preprint server, enabling experts in the same field to provide comments to which reviewers can refer.
The standards for peer review of articles for academic journals differ from those for applications for research funding. Academic journals ask experts in the subject of the article to carry out the peer review. The principal criteria considered by reviewers are as follows.
Reviewers report to an editorial committee or editor on their assessment of whether or not the article should be accepted. The decision is usually either (1) accept, (2) accept with minor revisions, (3) accept with major revisions, or (4) reject. Based on the results of the peer review, the editorial committee or editor makes a final decision on whether or not to accept the article. If the reviewers have conflicting opinions, the editor may ask another expert to carry out a peer review or may seek advice from members of the editorial committee. At some academic journals, a deputy editor proposes a decision based on the peer review and the editor makes the final decision.
Reviewers have a duty to maintain confidentiality. Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest when accepting a request to review an article and must maintain a high level of professionalism and neutrality throughout the peer review process.
In the event that a published article is criticized, most academic journals provide opportunities for readers to provide criticisms and for authors to rebut them. Criticism by readers is published in the form of comments and letters to the editor and authors are permitted to publish a rebuttal. In the case of some academic journals, an article may be discussed in the online comments section after publication. Such critical comments are also one form of guaranteeing the quality of articles. In addition, websites such as PubPeer enable comments on published articles to be posted either under one’s own name or anonymously. Some of these comments may provide evidence regarding allegations of research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) or questionable research practices.
National research funding organizations and private sector bodies that award grants make widespread use of peer review when screening applications to make decisions on the provision of research funding. The purpose of this is to ensure that funding is allocated to the most valuable programs, without giving preferential treatment to particular researchers. Applications for research funding are usually reviewed on the basis of the following standards.
Those making decisions on the publication of submitted articles or the acceptance or rejection of applications for research funding must comply with ethical standards. The American Chemical Society (ACS) issued the most recent version of its Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research in July 2020.[1] Serving as an international standard, these guidelines stipulate the ethical obligations of authors, editors, and reviewers. The explanation below has been prepared with reference to the ACS guidelines. These ethical guidelines usually also apply to reviewers of research funding applications.
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Submitted manuscripts and application forms must not be disclosed to third parties without the permission of the author or applicant. For example, a professor is not permitted to have their students help with peer review. Any printouts or photocopies of the manuscript must be destroyed after completion of the peer review. A reviewer should not use knowledge gained from a manuscript that they have peer reviewed until the article has been published, except with the consent of the author.
The American Chemical Society (ACS) prohibits reviewers from communicating directly with authors. Reviewers may only reveal their names with the permission of the editor. Such rules differ from one academic journal to another, so reviewers must check the provisions of the individual journal and comply with them.
It is dangerous for an author to assume that, just because reviewers have a duty to maintain confidentiality, they will abide by it without fail. When submitting articles, there is a possibility that peer reviewer of those articles will be allocated to those who are low awareness of the protection of intellectual property rights. For example, if the reviewer applies for a patent at foreign countries based on the content from an article you are submitted, it is very difficult for you to prove that their idea was plagiarized. In the case of important ideas, it is necessary to adopt such safeguards as filing a patent application before submitting the article.
Reviewers have a duty to carry out the peer review of articles and research funding applications carefully and to the best of their ability. While it may sometimes be necessary to adopt a critical perspective in examining an article, it is important that peer review be based on objective judgments with scientific knowledge, not on personal attacks.
Peer review is a task carried out by humans and the views of the reviewers may not always accord with each other. Such differences of opinion may be based on differences in outlook based on their expertise or may possibly stem from a lack of the expertise required for peer review. If the reviewer themselves cannot be certain that they have adequate knowledge when asked to conduct a peer review, they must discuss it with the editor of the academic journal or the relevant administrator at the research funding organization before agreeing to conduct the peer review.
Impartiality means treating one person’s article or research funding application as fairly as another’s. Ensuring transparency and complying with consistent procedures when accepting articles and applications for research funding is essential in order to win people’s trust that judgments are being made appropriately. In doing so, ensuring that the people who choose reviewers are fair is essential to maintain the impartiality of the peer review system. For example, results could differ considerably according to who is appointed as editor of an academic journal or funding administrator. Appropriate handling by editors and administrators is also a key element of impartiality.
Conflicts of interest regarding the peer review process must be mitigated or eliminated, due to the potential that a reviewer’s secondary interests could lead to bias or otherwise affect their evaluation. However, it might be difficult for a researcher to avoid all conflicts of interest. The American Chemical Society (ACS) makes the following recommendations.
The peer review process relies on reviewers’ integrity and objectivity. A reviewer should report any conflicts of interest or the possibility thereof to the academic journal or research funding organization. If in doubt, the candidate for reviewer must disclose their conflicts of interest and seek the judgment of the editor or research funding administrator regarding the request for peer review.
Authors and applicants might believe that the peer review of their article or research funding application was clearly unfair or inappropriate. In such situations, authors may lodge an objection with the journal’s editor, while applicants for research funding may lodge it with the research funding organization’s administrator. However, when lodging an objection, it is first necessary to seek the opinion of a trusted third party (a colleague, for example). You should only lodge an objection if, after considering and confirming the pros and cons of your decision, it is determined that there is a serious problem regarding the impartiality of the peer review.
When an author submits an article to an academic journal, they may be asked to submit the names and e-mail addresses of three to five candidates from among whom reviewers can be selected. However, these are merely suggestions and it is the editor who makes the decision on whether or not to actually approach those candidates about conducting a peer review. There have been cases in recent years of authors themselves masquerading as reviewers. To give an example without real names, the suggested candidate for reviewer was Professor Trou Yda, so the author created a fake e-mail account with the address Trou.Yda[at]xxmail.com instead of the real address Trou.Yda[at]xxuniversity.ac.jp and submitted that fake address to the editor as the address for the reviewer. When the editor asked Professor Yda to conduct the peer review, the request was sent to the fake e-mail account managed by the author and the author submitted a peer review report on their own article while masquerading as the reviewer. If such conduct is discovered, the article will be retracted on the grounds of misconduct and the author will be punished.
Various methods are used to publish the results of research and it is vital for researchers to have a good understanding of their respective characteristics. It is often necessary to go through the peer review process when publishing the results of research. Authors, funding applicants, reviewers, editors, and administrators must all behave responsibly for this process to function effectively. Maintaining people’s trust in the impartiality and credibility of peer review is essential to today’s systems for conducting research.