Understanding the Peer-Review Process and Quality Assurance in Academia

Peer-Review Manuscript Process and Quality

Reviewing scholarly writing is important for establishing its quality and, consequently, the precision of findings, which are to be used by other researchers in the field. From this perspective, the correlation between the above two notions explains the need to consider the involvement of third parties as an essential condition for ensuring authors’ objectivity. Thus, this stance is based on the requirements to receive approval from reviewers about the content, the value of the piece under consideration for the scholarly community, and authenticity (Santini, 2018). The inclusion of numerous elements in this initiative, which are mentioned above, justifies the link between peer-reviewing and quality and thereby confirms that this practice is critical for the further application of findings in any field. Moreover, the integrity of initial evidence is also affected by it since verifications in this respect correlate with the clarity and comprehensiveness of results.

In addition, the connection between the peer-review manuscript process and the notion of quality can be viewed through the lens of all participants’ perceptions. Thus, according to Pranić et al. (2021), the constructive nature of this method can be examined on the grounds of a single variable, which is the satisfaction of editors and authors. Their study shows that it varies depending on the acceptance or rejection of the writing as, in the former case, the attitudes are more favorable (Pranić et al., 2021).

However, this fact proves not only the correlation between the review outcomes and the experience of people but also the quality of articles, which are assessed by specialists in the corresponding fields. The worse attitudes correspond to the rejection of publications, which means that their ultimate value is higher (Pranić et al., 2021). In other words, the described phenomenon adds to the standpoint that the peer-review process should be viewed as a form of quality assurance.

Varying Viewpoints and Their Significance for Research

Conducting peer reviews is a complicated process, even though it is critical for maintaining the quality of writing, as it was confirmed above. In this situation, most challenges are connected to the presence of a variety of supporting and differing viewpoints in relation to a single piece, which is suggested for publication in reputable journals. However, gathering these perspectives is highly beneficial for complying with the established scholarly standards because this initiative allows promoting the objectivity of both authors and editors. For instance, the critical feedback, which is received as a result of peer reviews, helps determine the general issues with one’s writing.

It is proved by the existing practices of implementing strategies for processing and learning from it (Gravett et al., 2020). In this way, academic literacy is instilled by educational facilities when their representatives enhance the development of corresponding skills among their students.

Another fact, which adds to the feasibility of comparing supporting and differing views for increasing objectivity, is the gap between the opinions of instructors and authors. According to the study conducted among language learners, the focus of reviewers is usually in conflict with the views of scholars (Ahmed, 2021). Hence, the former’s orientation is on content, organization of ideas, evidence, and examples, which confirm it, whereas the latter’s tendency is to pay particular attention to language accuracy or, in other words, the subject of examination (Ahmed, 2021). This problem can occur between any participants, and reviewers working with the same materials might demonstrate varying priorities. Therefore, the combination of their standpoints would be the best and, more importantly, the most objective solution.

References

Ahmed, R. (2021). Peer review in academic writing: Different perspectives from instructors and students. TESOL Journal, 12, 1-17. Web.

Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M., Winstone, N. E., Balloo, K., Heron, M., Hosein, A., Lygo-Baker, S., & Medland, E. (2020). The development of academics’ feedback literacy: Experiences of learning from critical feedback via scholarly peer review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 651-665. Web.

Pranić, S. M., Malički, M., Marušić, S. L., Mehmani, B., & Marušić, A. (2021). Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors’ and authors’ satisfaction with peer review? A cross‐sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 187-197. Web.

Santini, A. (2018). The peer review process: Underwriting manuscript quality & validity. The Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 4(4), 111-113. Web.