Importance of Peer Review

Ever heard of uromycitisis? If it sounds familiar, it's probably because you remember it from an old episode of Seinfeld—but a paper on the (totally fictional) disease just fooled the reviewers of Urology & Nephrology Open Access Journal, according to Retraction Watch. The journal’s publisher once graced Jeffrey Beall’s now-defunct list of predatory journals, which extract high fees from would-be authors and publish their work without proper peer review. In the fake case study, freelance scientific editor John McCool writes under the pseudonym of Dr. Martin van Nostrand, another callout to the 1990s “show about nothing.” He explains that uromycitisis—brought on by a “prolonged failure to evacuate the contents of the bladder”—can cause infection and even psychological problems. The fake study, part of McCool’s effort to expose predatory journals, was inspired by an episode in which Jerry gets in trouble for urinating in public. Then again, these journals might be more Seinfeld-savvy than we thought. In the immortal words of George Costanza: “Just remember. It’s not a lie if you believe it.”


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/study-about-nothing-highlights-perils-predatory-publishing



Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task.
 It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable.
Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role.