Journal of Dental Research and Review

LETTER TO EDITOR
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 62-

Constructive peer review


Sora Yasri1, Viroj Wiwanitkit2,  
1 KMT Primary Care Center, Bangkok, Thailand
2 Department of Biological Science, Joseph Ayobabalola University, Ikeji-Arakeji, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
Sora Yasri
KMT Primary Care Center, Bangkok
Thailand




How to cite this article:
Yasri S, Wiwanitkit V. Constructive peer review.J Dent Res Rev 2019;6:62-62


How to cite this URL:
Yasri S, Wiwanitkit V. Constructive peer review. J Dent Res Rev [serial online] 2019 [cited 2022 May 22 ];6:62-62
Available from: https://www.jdrr.org/text.asp?2019/6/2/62/270651


Full Text



Sir,

Peer review is an important necessary problem in academic publication. The main aim of peer-reviewing process is checking for the merit of the manuscript for publication or presentation. Often, the authors can use the comment from peer reviewers for improvement of the manuscript. The good peer reviewing is usually required from the journal. A good peer-reviewing process should be constructive and without bias.[1] For prevention of ant bias, the journal usually implement blinding reviewing process, ether single-blinded, double-blinded of triple-blinded types, in peer reviewing.[2] The open peer-reviewing system is also an interesting new idea for transparent peer-reviewing process.[3]

The constructive peer reviewing is an interesting issue. In academic society, peer reviewing and giving comment is common. The skill for constructive peer reviewing has to be trained. First, peer reviewing is an academic process. One who will be a peer reviewer has to has knowledge and experience on the topic for reviewing.[2] Second, peer reviewing should aim to find the opportunity for improvement of the work. It is not the way to create a threat to the work. Optimistic ideas are required. Third, the words used in comments should be short and concise. Polite comment is preferred.

The constructive comment should be as the following:

  1. Comment that directly relates to the content of the manuscript is preferred. Any comment that is not related to the manuscript should be avoided
  2. Comment on the content of the manuscript is preferred. Sometimes, if journal does not apply blinded peer-reviewing process, some reviewers might comment on the authors or institute of authors, which is an actual bias of the reviewers
  3. Comment that points the opportunities for improvement of the work is preferred. Any comment that points to the pitfall without suggested corrective action should be avoided
  4. Comment that does not extrapolate from the derived content in the manuscript is preferred. Sometimes, a reviewer might falsely imagine and conclude without supportive evidence and makes a comment. This practice should be avoided.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest

References

1Kakodkar P. Journal's peer-review process: Point of view from the triad (contributor, peer reviewer and the editor). J Dent Res Rev 2018;5:33-4.
2Tomkins A, Zhang M, Heavlin WD. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017;114:12708-13.
3Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res 2017;6:588.