peer review process hypothesis

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

What is the Purpose of Peer Review?

What makes a good peer reviewer, how do you decide whether to review a paper, how do you complete a peer review, limitations of peer review, conclusions, research methods: how to perform an effective peer review.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Elise Peterson Lu , Brett G. Fischer , Melissa A. Plesac , Andrew P.J. Olson; Research Methods: How to Perform an Effective Peer Review. Hosp Pediatr November 2022; 12 (11): e409–e413. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2022-006764

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Scientific peer review has existed for centuries and is a cornerstone of the scientific publication process. Because the number of scientific publications has rapidly increased over the past decades, so has the number of peer reviews and peer reviewers. In this paper, drawing on the relevant medical literature and our collective experience as peer reviewers, we provide a user guide to the peer review process, including discussion of the purpose and limitations of peer review, the qualities of a good peer reviewer, and a step-by-step process of how to conduct an effective peer review.

Peer review has been a part of scientific publications since 1665, when the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society became the first publication to formalize a system of expert review. 1 , 2   It became an institutionalized part of science in the latter half of the 20 th century and is now the standard in scientific research publications. 3   In 2012, there were more than 28 000 scholarly peer-reviewed journals and more than 3 million peer reviewed articles are now published annually. 3 , 4   However, even with this volume, most peer reviewers learn to review “on the (unpaid) job” and no standard training system exists to ensure quality and consistency. 5   Expectations and format vary between journals and most, but not all, provide basic instructions for reviewers. In this paper, we provide a general introduction to the peer review process and identify common strategies for success as well as pitfalls to avoid.

Modern peer review serves 2 primary purposes: (1) as “a screen before the diffusion of new knowledge” 6   and (2) as a method to improve the quality of published work. 1 , 5  

As screeners, peer reviewers evaluate the quality, validity, relevance, and significance of research before publication to maintain the credibility of the publications they serve and their fields of study. 1 , 2 , 7   Although peer reviewers are not the final decision makers on publication (that role belongs to the editor), their recommendations affect editorial decisions and thoughtful comments influence an article’s fate. 6 , 8  

As advisors and evaluators of manuscripts, reviewers have an opportunity and responsibility to give authors an outside expert’s perspective on their work. 9   They provide feedback that can improve methodology, enhance rigor, improve clarity, and redefine the scope of articles. 5 , 8 , 10   This often happens even if a paper is not ultimately accepted at the reviewer’s journal because peer reviewers’ comments are incorporated into revised drafts that are submitted to another journal. In a 2019 survey of authors, reviewers, and editors, 83% said that peer review helps science communication and 90% of authors reported that peer review improved their last paper. 11  

Expertise: Peer reviewers should be up to date with current literature, practice guidelines, and methodology within their subject area. However, academic rank and seniority do not define expertise and are not actually correlated with performance in peer review. 13  

Professionalism: Reviewers should be reliable and objective, aware of their own biases, and respectful of the confidentiality of the peer review process.

Critical skill : Reviewers should be organized, thorough, and detailed in their critique with the goal of improving the manuscript under their review, regardless of disposition. They should provide constructive comments that are specific and addressable, referencing literature when possible. A peer reviewer should leave a paper better than he or she found it.

Is the manuscript within your area of expertise? Generally, if you are asked to review a paper, it is because an editor felt that you were a qualified expert. In a 2019 survey, 74% of requested reviews were within the reviewer’s area of expertise. 11   This, of course, does not mean that you must be widely published in the area, only that you have enough expertise and comfort with the topic to critique and add to the paper.

Do you have any biases that may affect your review? Are there elements of the methodology, content area, or theory with which you disagree? Some disagreements between authors and reviewers are common, expected, and even helpful. However, if a reviewer fundamentally disagrees with an author’s premise such that he or she cannot be constructive, the review invitation should be declined.

Do you have the time? The average review for a clinical journal takes 5 to 6 hours, though many take longer depending on the complexity of the research and the experience of the reviewer. 1 , 14   Journals vary on the requested timeline for return of reviews, though it is usually 1 to 4 weeks. Peer review is often the longest part of the publication process and delays contribute to slower dissemination of important work and decreased author satisfaction. 15   Be mindful of your schedule and only accept a review invitation if you can reasonably return the review in the requested time.

Once you have determined that you are the right person and decided to take on the review, reply to the inviting e-mail or click the associated link to accept (or decline) the invitation. Journal editors invite a limited number of reviewers at a time and wait for responses before inviting others. A common complaint among journal editors surveyed was that reviewers would often take days to weeks to respond to requests, or not respond at all, making it difficult to find appropriate reviewers and prolonging an already long process. 5  

Now that you have decided to take on the review, it is best of have a systematic way of both evaluating the manuscript and writing the review. Various suggestions exist in the literature, but we will describe our standard procedure for review, incorporating specific do’s and don’ts summarized in Table 1 .

Dos and Don’ts of Peer Review

First, read the manuscript once without making notes or forming opinions to get a sense of the paper as whole. Assess the overall tone and flow and define what the authors identify as the main point of their work. Does the work overall make sense? Do the authors tell the story effectively?

Next, read the manuscript again with an eye toward review, taking notes and formulating thoughts on strengths and weaknesses. Consider the methodology and identify the specific type of research described. Refer to the corresponding reporting guideline if applicable (CONSORT for randomized control trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews). Reporting guidelines often include a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text giving a minimum list of information needed in a manuscript based on the type of research done. 16   This allows the reviewer to formulate a more nuanced and specific assessment of the manuscript.

Next, review the main findings, the significance of the work, and what contribution it makes to the field. Examine the presentation and flow of the manuscript but do not copy edit the text. At this point, you should start to write your review. Some journals provide a format for their reviews, but often it is up to the reviewer. In surveys of journal editors and reviewers, a review organized by manuscript section was the most favored, 5 , 6   so that is what we will describe here.

As you write your review, consider starting with a brief summary of the work that identifies the main topic, explains the basic approach, and describes the findings and conclusions. 12 , 17   Though not universally included in all reviews, we have found this step to be helpful in ensuring that the work is conveyed clearly enough for the reviewer to summarize it. Include brief notes on the significance of the work and what it adds to current knowledge. Critique the presentation of the work: is it clearly written? Is its length appropriate? List any major concerns with the work overall, such as major methodological flaws or inaccurate conclusions that should disqualify it from publication, though do not comment directly on disposition. Then perform your review by section:

Abstract : Is it consistent with the rest of the paper? Does it adequately describe the major points?

Introduction : This section should provide adequate background to explain the need for the study. Generally, classic or highly relevant studies should be cited, but citations do not have to be exhaustive. The research question and hypothesis should be clearly stated.

Methods: Evaluate both the methods themselves and the way in which they are explained. Does the methodology used meet the needs of the questions proposed? Is there sufficient detail to explain what the authors did and, if not, what needs to be added? For clinical research, examine the inclusion/exclusion criteria, control populations, and possible sources of bias. Reporting guidelines can be particularly helpful in determining the appropriateness of the methods and how they are reported.

Some journals will expect an evaluation of the statistics used, whereas others will have a separate statistician evaluate, and the reviewers are generally not expected to have an exhaustive knowledge of statistical methods. Clarify expectations if needed and, if you do not feel qualified to evaluate the statistics, make this clear in your review.

Results: Evaluate the presentation of the results. Is information given in sufficient detail to assess credibility? Are the results consistent with the methodology reported? Are the figures and tables consistent with the text, easy to interpret, and relevant to the work? Make note of data that could be better detailed in figures or tables, rather than included in the text. Make note of inappropriate interpretation in the results section (this should be in discussion) or rehashing of methods.

Discussion: Evaluate the authors’ interpretation of their results, how they address limitations, and the implications of their work. How does the work contribute to the field, and do the authors adequately describe those contributions? Make note of overinterpretation or conclusions not supported by the data.

The length of your review often correlates with your opinion of the quality of the work. If an article has major flaws that you think preclude publication, write a brief review that focuses on the big picture. Articles that may not be accepted but still represent quality work merit longer reviews aimed at helping the author improve the work for resubmission elsewhere.

Generally, do not include your recommendation on disposition in the body of the review itself. Acceptance or rejection is ultimately determined by the editor and including your recommendation in your comments to the authors can be confusing. A journal editor’s decision on acceptance or rejection may depend on more factors than just the quality of the work, including the subject area, journal priorities, other contemporaneous submissions, and page constraints.

Many submission sites include a separate question asking whether to accept, accept with major revision, or reject. If this specific format is not included, then add your recommendation in the “confidential notes to the editor.” Your recommendation should be consistent with the content of your review: don’t give a glowing review but recommend rejection or harshly criticize a manuscript but recommend publication. Last, regardless of your ultimate recommendation on disposition, it is imperative to use respectful and professional language and tone in your written review.

Although peer review is often described as the “gatekeeper” of science and characterized as a quality control measure, peer review is not ideally designed to detect fundamental errors, plagiarism, or fraud. In multiple studies, peer reviewers detected only 20% to 33% of intentionally inserted errors in scientific manuscripts. 18 , 19   Plagiarism similarly is not detected in peer review, largely because of the huge volume of literature available to plagiarize. Most journals now use computer software to identify plagiarism before a manuscript goes to peer review. Finally, outright fraud often goes undetected in peer review. Reviewers start from a position of respect for the authors and trust the data they are given barring obvious inconsistencies. Ultimately, reviewers are “gatekeepers, not detectives.” 7  

Peer review is also limited by bias. Even with the best of intentions, reviewers bring biases including but not limited to prestige bias, affiliation bias, nationality bias, language bias, gender bias, content bias, confirmation bias, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, conservatism, and bias of conflict of interest. 3 , 4 , 6   For example, peer reviewers score methodology higher and are more likely to recommend publication when prestigious author names or institutions are visible. 20   Although bias can be mitigated both by the reviewer and by the journal, it cannot be eliminated. Reviewers should be mindful of their own biases while performing reviews and work to actively mitigate them. For example, if English language editing is necessary, state this with specific examples rather than suggesting the authors seek editing by a “native English speaker.”

Peer review is an essential, though imperfect, part of the forward movement of science. Peer review can function as both a gatekeeper to protect the published record of science and a mechanism to improve research at the level of individual manuscripts. Here, we have described our strategy, summarized in Table 2 , for performing a thorough peer review, with a focus on organization, objectivity, and constructiveness. By using a systematized strategy to evaluate manuscripts and an organized format for writing reviews, you can provide a relatively objective perspective in editorial decision-making. By providing specific and constructive feedback to authors, you contribute to the quality of the published literature.

Take-home Points

FUNDING: No external funding.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dr Lu performed the literature review and wrote the manuscript. Dr Fischer assisted in the literature review and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Dr Plesac provided background information on the process of peer review, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and completed revisions. Dr Olson provided background information and practical advice, critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 2154-1671
• Print ISSN 2154-1663
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Science Notes Posts
• Contact Science Notes
• Todd Helmenstine Biography
• Anne Helmenstine Biography
• Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
• Periodic Table Wallpapers
• Interactive Periodic Table
• Periodic Table Posters
• How to Grow Crystals
• Chemistry Projects
• Fire and Flames Projects
• Holiday Science
• Chemistry Problems With Answers
• Physics Problems
• Unit Conversion Example Problems
• Chemistry Worksheets
• Biology Worksheets
• Periodic Table Worksheets
• Physical Science Worksheets
• Science Lab Worksheets
• My Amazon Books

Understanding Peer Review in Science

Peer review is an essential element of the scientific publishing process that helps ensure that research articles are evaluated, critiqued, and improved before release into the academic community. Take a look at the significance of peer review in scientific publications, the typical steps of the process, and and how to approach peer review if you are asked to assess a manuscript.

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by peers, who are people with comparable experience and competency. Peers assess each others’ work in educational settings, in professional settings, and in the publishing world. The goal of peer review is improving quality, defining and maintaining standards, and helping people learn from one another.

In the context of scientific publication, peer review helps editors determine which submissions merit publication and improves the quality of manuscripts prior to their final release.

Types of Peer Review for Manuscripts

There are three main types of peer review:

• Single-blind review: The reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Double-blind review: Both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
• Open peer review: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are disclosed, promoting transparency and collaboration.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each method. Anonymous reviews reduce bias but reduce collaboration, while open reviews are more transparent, but increase bias.

Key Elements of Peer Review

Proper selection of a peer group improves the outcome of the process:

• Expertise : Reviewers should possess adequate knowledge and experience in the relevant field to provide constructive feedback.
• Objectivity : Reviewers assess the manuscript impartially and without personal bias.
• Confidentiality : The peer review process maintains confidentiality to protect intellectual property and encourage honest feedback.
• Timeliness : Reviewers provide feedback within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely publication.

Steps of the Peer Review Process

The typical peer review process for scientific publications involves the following steps:

• Submission : Authors submit their manuscript to a journal that aligns with their research topic.
• Editorial assessment : The journal editor examines the manuscript and determines whether or not it is suitable for publication. If it is not, the manuscript is rejected.
• Peer review : If it is suitable, the editor sends the article to peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• Reviewer feedback : Reviewers provide feedback, critique, and suggestions for improvement.
• Revision and resubmission : Authors address the feedback and make necessary revisions before resubmitting the manuscript.
• Final decision : The editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewer comments.
• Publication : If accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal.

Pros and Cons

While the goal of peer review is improving the quality of published research, the process isn’t without its drawbacks.

• Quality assurance : Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of published research.
• Error detection : The process identifies errors and flaws that the authors may have overlooked.
• Credibility : The scientific community generally considers peer-reviewed articles to be more credible.
• Professional development : Reviewers can learn from the work of others and enhance their own knowledge and understanding.
• Time-consuming : The peer review process can be lengthy, delaying the publication of potentially valuable research.
• Bias : Personal biases of reviews impact their evaluation of the manuscript.
• Inconsistency : Different reviewers may provide conflicting feedback, making it challenging for authors to address all concerns.
• Limited effectiveness : Peer review does not always detect significant errors or misconduct.
• Poaching : Some reviewers take an idea from a submission and gain publication before the authors of the original research.

Steps for Conducting Peer Review of an Article

Generally, an editor provides guidance when you are asked to provide peer review of a manuscript. Here are typical steps of the process.

• Accept the right assignment: Accept invitations to review articles that align with your area of expertise to ensure you can provide well-informed feedback.
• Manage your time: Allocate sufficient time to thoroughly read and evaluate the manuscript, while adhering to the journal’s deadline for providing feedback.
• Read the manuscript multiple times: First, read the manuscript for an overall understanding of the research. Then, read it more closely to assess the details, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Evaluate the structure and organization: Check if the manuscript follows the journal’s guidelines and is structured logically, with clear headings, subheadings, and a coherent flow of information.
• Assess the quality of the research: Evaluate the research question, study design, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Consider whether the methods are appropriate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are supported by the data.
• Examine the originality and relevance: Determine if the research offers new insights, builds on existing knowledge, and is relevant to the field.
• Check for clarity and consistency: Review the manuscript for clarity of writing, consistent terminology, and proper formatting of figures, tables, and references.
• Identify ethical issues: Look for potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.
• Provide constructive feedback: Offer specific, actionable, and objective suggestions for improvement, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Don’t be mean.
• Organize your review: Structure your review with an overview of your evaluation, followed by detailed comments and suggestions organized by section (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion).
• Be professional and respectful: Maintain a respectful tone in your feedback, avoiding personal criticism or derogatory language.
• Proofread your review: Before submitting your review, proofread it for typos, grammar, and clarity.
• Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). “Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study”. Science . 341 (6152): 1331. doi: 10.1126/science.341.6152.1331
• Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). “Bias in peer review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1): 2–17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
• Slavov, Nikolai (2015). “Making the most of peer review”. eLife . 4: e12708. doi: 10.7554/eLife.12708
• Spier, Ray (2002). “The history of the peer-review process”. Trends in Biotechnology . 20 (8): 357–8. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
• Squazzoni, Flaminio; Brezis, Elise; Marušić, Ana (2017). “Scientometrics of peer review”. Scientometrics . 113 (1): 501–502. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4

Related Posts

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 16 April 2024

Structure peer review to make it more robust

• Mario Malički 0

Mario Malički is associate director of the Stanford Program on Research Rigor and Reproducibility (SPORR) and co-editor-in-chief of the Research Integrity and Peer Review journal.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

In February, I received two peer-review reports for a manuscript I’d submitted to a journal. One report contained 3 comments, the other 11. Apart from one point, all the feedback was different. It focused on expanding the discussion and some methodological details — there were no remarks about the study’s objectives, analyses or limitations.

My co-authors and I duly replied, working under two assumptions that are common in scholarly publishing: first, that anything the reviewers didn’t comment on they had found acceptable for publication; second, that they had the expertise to assess all aspects of our manuscript. But, as history has shown, those assumptions are not always accurate (see Lancet 396 , 1056; 2020 ). And through the cracks, inaccurate, sloppy and falsified research can slip.

As co-editor-in-chief of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review (an open-access journal published by BMC, which is part of Springer Nature), I’m invested in ensuring that the scholarly peer-review system is as trustworthy as possible. And I think that to be robust, peer review needs to be more structured. By that, I mean that journals should provide reviewers with a transparent set of questions to answer that focus on methodological, analytical and interpretative aspects of a paper.

For example, editors might ask peer reviewers to consider whether the methods are described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the work, whether extra statistical analyses are needed, and whether the authors’ interpretation of the results is supported by the data and the study methods. Should a reviewer find anything unsatisfactory, they should provide constructive criticism to the authors. And if reviewers lack the expertise to assess any part of the manuscript, they should be asked to declare this.

Anonymizing peer review makes the process more just

Other aspects of a study, such as novelty, potential impact, language and formatting, should be handled by editors, journal staff or even machines, reducing the workload for reviewers.

The list of questions reviewers will be asked should be published on the journal’s website, allowing authors to prepare their manuscripts with this process in mind. And, as others have argued before, review reports should be published in full. This would allow readers to judge for themselves how a paper was assessed, and would enable researchers to study peer-review practices.

To see how this works in practice, since 2022 I’ve been working with the publisher Elsevier on a pilot study of structured peer review in 23 of its journals, covering the health, life, physical and social sciences. The preliminary results indicate that, when guided by the same questions, reviewers made the same initial recommendation about whether to accept, revise or reject a paper 41% of the time, compared with 31% before these journals implemented structured peer review. Moreover, reviewers’ comments were in agreement about specific parts of a manuscript up to 72% of the time ( M. Malički and B. Mehmani Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/mrdv; 2024 ). In my opinion, reaching such agreement is important for science, which proceeds mainly through consensus.

Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off

I invite editors and publishers to follow in our footsteps and experiment with structured peer reviews. Anyone can trial our template questions (see go.nature.com/4ab2ppc ), or tailor them to suit specific fields or study types. For instance, mathematics journals might also ask whether referees agree with the logic or completeness of a proof. Some journals might ask reviewers if they have checked the raw data or the study code. Publications that employ editors who are less embedded in the research they handle than are academics might need to include questions about a paper’s novelty or impact.

Scientists can also use these questions, either as a checklist when writing papers or when they are reviewing for journals that don’t apply structured peer review.

Some journals — including Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , the PLOS family of journals, F1000 journals and some Springer Nature journals — already have their own sets of structured questions for peer reviewers. But, in general, these journals do not disclose the questions they ask, and do not make their questions consistent. This means that core peer-review checks are still not standardized, and reviewers are tasked with different questions when working for different journals.

Some might argue that, because different journals have different thresholds for publication, they should adhere to different standards of quality control. I disagree. Not every study is groundbreaking, but scientists should view quality control of the scientific literature in the same way as quality control in other sectors: as a way to ensure that a product is safe for use by the public. People should be able to see what types of check were done, and when, before an aeroplane was approved as safe for flying. We should apply the same rigour to scientific research.

Ultimately, I hope for a future in which all journals use the same core set of questions for specific study types and make all of their review reports public. I fear that a lack of standard practice in this area is delaying the progress of science.

Nature 628 , 476 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01101-9

Reprints and permissions

Competing Interests

M.M. is co-editor-in-chief of the Research Integrity and Peer Review journal that publishes signed peer review reports alongside published articles. He is also the chair of the European Association of Science Editors Peer Review Committee.

Related Articles

• Scientific community
• Peer review

Retractions are part of science, but misconduct isn’t — lessons from a superconductivity lab

Editorial 24 APR 24

Ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork

World View 24 APR 24

Chemistry lab destroyed by Taiwan earthquake has physical and mental impacts

Correspondence 23 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

News 10 APR 24

Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing

Career Column 08 APR 24

Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?

Nature Index 20 MAR 24

Technician - Senior Technician in Cell and Molecular Biology

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 24.05.2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and supported by the Italian ...

Human Technopole

Postdoctoral Fellow

The Dubal Laboratory of Neuroscience and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) seeks postdoctoral fellows to investigate the ...

San Francisco, California

University of California, San Francsico

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Description Applications are invited for a postdoctoral fellow position at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, to participate...

Toronto (City), Ontario (CA)

Sinai Health

Postdoctoral Research Associate - Surgery

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

The Role of Peer Review in the Scientific Process

• First Online: 14 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Henriette De La Garza 3 &
• Neelam A. Vashi 3  

715 Accesses

1 Citations

Peer review has become an essential component of the scientific publication process. It ensures that papers published in scientific journals provide adequately analyzed and presented data, novel and meaningful information, answers to the unknown, and accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. This process aims to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts before they are published. Researchers believe that peer review is the central pillar of trust and that without it there would be no control in scientific communication. However, this process is not perfect, and it is entwined with advantages and disadvantages, which makes it prone to bias. The credibility of the scientific community and the perception of the public to accept new results strongly depends on the authenticity of the articles that are published. It is our duty to ensure conformance with ethical requirements and the publication of veritable research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC 25(3):227–243

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rockwell S (2014) Ethics of peer review: a guide for manuscript reviewers case studies - guide for the discussion leader. Office, pp 1–19

Google Scholar  

Wiley RANO Survey (2013) Principles of peer review. Wiley Author Services. https://authorservices.wiley.com/asset/Principles_of_Peer_Review.pdf . Accessed 4 May 2021

Elsevier, The Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) Survey (2016) How researchers really feel about peer review. Elsevier, Amsterdam. elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/205717/PeerReviewWeek2016_Infographic.pdf . Accessed 4 May 2021

Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287(21):2784–2786

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Voight ML, Hoogenboom BJ (2012) Publishing your work in a journal: understanding the peer review process. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7(5):452–460

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH (2019) Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin proc 94(4):670–676

Ernst E, Kienbacher T (1991) Chauvinism. Nature 352:560

Article   Google Scholar  

Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM (2006) Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 295(14):1675–1680

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jayasinghe UW, Marsh HW, Bond N (2003) A multilevel cross classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. J Royal Stat Soc Series A (Statistics in Society) 166(3):279–300

Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2012) Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(1):2–17

Fanelli D (2010) Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One 5(4):e10271

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Resnik DB, Elmore SA (2018) Conflict of interest in journal peer review. Toxicol Pathol 46(2):112–114

Lindsey D (1991) Precision in the manuscript review process: Hargens and Herting revisited. Scientometrics 22:313–325

Braben DW (2004) Pioneering research: a risk worth taking. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ

Stanford PK (2012) Getting what we pay for: unconceived alternatives and historical changes in scientific inquiry. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Irvine, CA

The importance of titles (2021) https://springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/the-importance-of-titles/1410#:~:text=The title of your manuscript,people want to read further . Accessed 4 May 2021

Venkatesh S, Maymone MB, Vashi NA (2018) Peer reviews: the dreaded rejection. Dermatol Online J 24(3):13030/qt9h60v8r6

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Elston DM (2019) Common reasons why manuscripts are rejected: advice for young investigators. J Am Acad Dermatol 80(6):1523

Chaitow S (2019) The life-cycle of your manuscript: from submission to publication. J Bodyw Mov Ther 23(4):683–689

Coates R, Sturgeon B, Bohannan J, Pasini E (2002) Language and publication in “Cardiovascular Research” articles. Cardiovasc Res 53(2):279–285

Patnayak R, Jena A (2014) Rejection of a manuscript: the other side of the story. Indian J Med Microbiol 32(3):350–351

Chernick V (2008) How to get your paper rejected. Ped Pulmonol 43(3):220–223

Pierson DJ (2004) The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Resp Care 49(10):1246–1252

Reuters T (2012) Global Publishing: changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers. https://bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ea40d7bf5b8995a511aba03008f89d7f/cram . Accessed 4 May 2021

Calcagno V, Demoinet E, Gollner K, Guidi L, Ruths D, de Mazancourt C (2012) Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science 338(6110):1065–1069

Brice J, Bligh J (2005) Author misconduct: not just the editors’ responsibility. Med Educ 39(1):83–89

Matías-Guiu J, García-Ramos R (2010) Fraude y conductas inapropiadas en las publicaciones científicas [Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications]. Neurologia 25(1):1–4

Marcovitch H (2007) Misconduct by researchers and authors. Gac Sanit 21(6):492–499

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263):1191–1194

Anonymous. (2010) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 1(1):42–58

Groves T (2020) Scientific misconduct. https://authors.bmj.com/policies/scientific-misconduct/ . Accessed 4 May 2021

Wager E, Middleton P (2008) Technical editing of research reports in biomedical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:MR000002

Wager E (2007) Ethical publishing: the innocent author’s guide to avoiding misconduct. Menop Int 13(3):98–102

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Dermatology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

Henriette De La Garza & Neelam A. Vashi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neelam A. Vashi .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Hospital das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Joel Faintuch

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Salomão Faintuch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

De La Garza, H., Vashi, N.A. (2022). The Role of Peer Review in the Scientific Process. In: Faintuch, J., Faintuch, S. (eds) Integrity of Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_41

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_41

Published : 14 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-99679-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-99680-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

You are using an outdated browser . Please upgrade your browser today !

What Is Peer Review and Why Is It Important?

It’s one of the major cornerstones of the academic process and critical to maintaining rigorous quality standards for research papers. Whichever side of the peer review process you’re on, we want to help you understand the steps involved.

This post is part of a series that provides practical information and resources for authors and editors.

Peer review – the evaluation of academic research by other experts in the same field – has been used by the scientific community as a method of ensuring novelty and quality of research for more than 300 years. It is a testament to the power of peer review that a scientific hypothesis or statement presented to the world is largely ignored by the scholarly community unless it is first published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is also safe to say that peer review is a critical element of the scholarly publication process and one of the major cornerstones of the academic process. It acts as a filter, ensuring that research is properly verified before being published. And it arguably improves the quality of the research, as the rigorous review by like-minded experts helps to refine or emphasise key points and correct inadvertent errors.

Ideally, this process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and in turn reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views.

If you are a researcher, you will come across peer review many times in your career. But not every part of the process might be clear to you yet. So, let’s have a look together!

Types of Peer Review

Peer review comes in many different forms. With single-blind peer review , the names of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, while double-blind peer review , both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Then, there is open peer review , a term which offers more than one interpretation nowadays.

Open peer review can simply mean that reviewer and author identities are revealed to each other. It can also mean that a journal makes the reviewers’ reports and author replies of published papers publicly available (anonymized or not). The “open” in open peer review can even be a call for participation, where fellow researchers are invited to proactively comment on a freely accessible pre-print article. The latter two options are not yet widely used, but the Open Science movement, which strives for more transparency in scientific publishing, has been giving them a strong push over the last years.

If you are unsure about what kind of peer review a specific journal conducts, check out its instructions for authors and/or their editorial policy on the journal’s home page.

Why Should I Even Review?

To answer that question, many reviewers would probably reply that it simply is their “academic duty” – a natural part of academia, an important mechanism to monitor the quality of published research in their field. This is of course why the peer-review system was developed in the first place – by academia rather than the publishers – but there are also benefits.

Are you looking for the right place to publish your paper? Find out here whether a De Gruyter journal might be the right fit.

Besides a general interest in the field, reviewing also helps researchers keep up-to-date with the latest developments. They get to know about new research before everyone else does. It might help with their own research and/or stimulate new ideas. On top of that, reviewing builds relationships with prestigious journals and journal editors.

Clearly, reviewing is also crucial for the development of a scientific career, especially in the early stages. Relatively new services like Publons and ORCID Reviewer Recognition can support reviewers in getting credit for their efforts and making their contributions more visible to the wider community.

The Fundamentals of Reviewing

You have received an invitation to review? Before agreeing to do so, there are three pertinent questions you should ask yourself:

• Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
• Do you have time to review the paper?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. of financial or personal nature)?

If you feel like you cannot handle the review for whatever reason, it is okay to decline. If you can think of a colleague who would be well suited for the topic, even better – suggest them to the journal’s editorial office.

But let’s assume that you have accepted the request. Here are some general things to keep in mind:

Please be aware that reviewer reports provide advice for editors to assist them in reaching a decision on a submitted paper. The final decision concerning a manuscript does not lie with you, but ultimately with the editor. It’s your expert guidance that is being sought.

Reviewing also needs to be conducted confidentially . The article you have been asked to review, including supplementary material, must never be disclosed to a third party. In the traditional single- or double-blind peer review process, your own anonymity will also be strictly preserved. Therefore, you should not communicate directly with the authors.

When writing a review, it is important to keep the journal’s guidelines in mind and to work along the building blocks of a manuscript (typically: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references, tables, figures).

After initial receipt of the manuscript, you will be asked to supply your feedback within a specified period (usually 2-4 weeks). If at some point you notice that you are running out of time, get in touch with the editorial office as soon as you can and ask whether an extension is possible.

Some More Advice from a Journal Editor

• Be critical and constructive. An editor will find it easier to overturn very critical, unconstructive comments than to overturn favourable comments.
• Justify and specify all criticisms. Make specific references to the text of the paper (use line numbers!) or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
• Don’t repeat information from the paper , for example, the title and authors names, as this information already appears elsewhere in the review form.
• Check the aims and scope. This will help ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy and can be found on its home page.
• Give a clear recommendation . Do not put “I will leave the decision to the editor” in your reply, unless you are genuinely unsure of your recommendation.
• Number your comments. This makes it easy for authors to easily refer to them.
• Be careful not to identify yourself. Check, for example, the file name of your report if you submit it as a Word file.

Sticking to these rules will make the author’s life and that of the editors much easier!

Explore new perspectives on peer review in this collection of blog posts published during Peer Review Week 2021

[Title image by AndreyPopov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

David Sleeman

David Sleeman worked as a Senior Journals Manager in the field of Physical Sciences at De Gruyter.

You might also be interested in

Academia & Publishing

The Impact of Transformative Agreements on Scholarly Publishing

Our website is currently unavailable: cyberattacks on cultural heritage institutions, wie steht es um das wissenschaftliche erbe der ddr eine podiumsdiskussion, visit our shop.

De Gruyter publishes over 1,300 new book titles each year and more than 750 journals in the humanities, social sciences, medicine, mathematics, engineering, computer sciences, natural sciences, and law.

Pin It on Pinterest

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Understanding Science 101
• Peer-reviewed journals are publications in which scientific contributions have been vetted by experts in the relevant field.
• Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science.

Scrutinizing science: Peer review

In science, peer review helps provide assurance that published research meets minimum standards for scientific quality. Peer review typically works something like this:

• A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
• The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
• Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
• The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
• Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence , etc.) are accepted for publication.

Peer review and publication are time-consuming, frequently involving more than a year between submission and publication. The process is also highly competitive. For example, the highly-regarded journal Science accepts less than 8% of the articles it receives, and The New England Journal of Medicine publishes just 6% of its submissions.

Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study! Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.

PEER REVIEW: NOT JUST SCIENCE

Many fields outside of science use peer review to ensure quality. Philosophy journals, for example, make publication decisions based on the reviews of other philosophers, and the same is true of scholarly journals on topics as diverse as law, art, and ethics. Even those outside the research community often use some form of peer review. Figure-skating championships may be judged by former skaters and coaches. Wine-makers may help evaluate wine in competitions. Artists may help judge art contests. So while peer review is a hallmark of science, it is not unique to science.

• Science in action
• Take a sidetrip

What’s peer review good for? To find out, explore what happens when the process is by-passed. Visit  Cold fusion: A case study for scientific behavior .

• To find out how to tell if research is peer-reviewed and why this is important, check out this  handy guide from Sense About Science .
• Advanced: Visit the Visionlearning website for advanced material on peer review .
• Advanced: Visit The Scientist  magazine to learn about  how peer review benefits the people doing the reviewing .

Publish or perish?

Copycats in science: The role of replication

Subscribe to our newsletter

• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool
• Misconceptions

Scholarly Articles

• Scholarly article sections
• What is peer review?
• Reading scholarly articles practice
• Handouts: Reading & Evaluating
• How do I summarize a scholarly article?
• How do I find scholarly articles?
• Wrapping up scholarly articles

Peer reviewed articles have gone through a process where other researchers/experts in the same field of study reviewed the article before it was published. The reviewers look at things like how well the study was designed and implemented, how clearly the authors present their data, if the conclusions are supported by the evidence, and more. This is meant to increase the trust in published research. It's not always perfect, but it's the "gold standard" of publishing articles in many disciplines.

The process usually takes at least 3 months- sometimes a year or more, depending on the journal's publication cycle, the speediness of the reviewers, and the amount of revisions required before publication. Here's what the process looks like:

1. Researchers start with an idea, theory, and/or hypothesis

2. Researchers conduct a study or do research in some way and write up their findings

3. Researchers/authors submit a proposed article to a journal editor

4. The journal editor decides if the article fits with the journal's mission- tf yes, it gets sent to 3-5 other experts/researchers in the field (called "reviewers")

5. The editor reviews feedback from the reviewers and decides to accept, revise, or reject the article.

6. Usually the authors are sent the feedback and revision suggestions unless it is rejected after peer review

Checking for peer review

In library databases, use a "peer reviewed" or "refereed" filter during your search. In some databases, you can click on the journal name and it will say if it's peer reviewed or not.

If you're not sure about a publication, search the internet for the publication name. Often, Wikipedia will have the answer! You can also look at the journal's home page or in the "About" section to see. If they use peer review, they'll tell you about it.

Caution: Not every article in a peer reviewed journal is actually peer reviewed. Things like editorials, commentaries, book reviews, updates, etc. do not usually go through the peer review process.

Still unsure? Ask a librarian!

Examples of peer reviewed articles

Click on the article title to view through the SLCC Library system:

Kilgo, D. K., Mourao, R. R., & Sylvie, G. (2019). Martin to Brown: How time and platform impact coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement. Journalism Practice , 13 (4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2018.1507680

Lane, K., Williams, Y., Hunt, A. N., & Paulk, A. (2020). The Framing of Race: Trayvon Martin and the Black Lives Matter Movement. Journal of Black Studies , 51 (8), 790–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934720946802

Rosenberg, M., Ranapurwala, S. I., Townes, A., & Bengtson, A. M. (2017). Do black lives matter in public health research and training? PLoS ONE , 12 (10), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185957

Image credit

Image used with permission from the UCSD Libraries.

License information

• << Previous: Scholarly article sections
• Next: How do I read scholarly articles? >>
• Last Updated: Jul 26, 2023 11:01 AM
• URL: https://libguides.slcc.edu/scholarlyarticles

Peer review isn’t perfect − I know because I teach others how to do it and I’ve seen firsthand how it comes up short

Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Quinnipiac University

Disclosure statement

JT Torres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Quinnipiac University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

When I teach research methods, a major focus is peer review . As a process, peer review evaluates academic papers for their quality, integrity and impact on a field, largely shaping what scientists accept as “knowledge.” By instinct, any academic follows up a new idea with the question, “Was that peer reviewed?”

Although I believe in the importance of peer review – and I help do peer reviews for several academic journals – I know how vulnerable the process can be. Not only have academics questioned peer review reliability for decades, but the retraction of more than 10,000 research papers in 2023 set a new record.

I had my first encounter with the flaws in the peer review process in 2015, during my first year as a Ph.D. student in educational psychology at a large land-grant university in the Pacific Northwest.

My adviser published some of the most widely cited studies in educational research. He served on several editorial boards. Some of the most recognized journals in learning science solicited his review of new studies. One day, I knocked on his office door. He answered without getting up from his chair, a printed manuscript splayed open on his lap, and waved me in.

“Good timing,” he said. “Do you have peer review experience?”

I had served on the editorial staff for literary journals and reviewed poetry and fiction submissions, but I doubted much of that transferred to scientific peer review.

“Fantastic.” He smiled in relief. “This will be real-world learning.” He handed me the manuscript from his lap and told me to have my written review back to him in a week.

I was too embarrassed to ask how one actually does peer review, so I offered an impromptu plan based on my prior experience: “I’ll make editing comments in the margins and then write a summary about the overall quality?”

His smile faded, either because of disappointment or distraction. He began responding to an email.

“Make sure the methods are sound. The results make sense. Don’t worry about the editing.”

Ultimately, I fumbled my way through, saving my adviser time on one less review he had to conduct. Afterward, I did receive good feedback and eventually became a confident peer reviewer. But at the time, I certainly was not a “peer.” I was too new in my field to evaluate methods and results, and I had not yet been exposed to enough studies to identify a surprising observation or to recognize the quality I was supposed to control. Manipulated data or subpar methods could easily have gone undetected.

Effects of bias

Knowledge is not self-evident. A survey can be designed with a problematic amount of bias , even if unintentional.

Observing a phenomenon in one context, such as an intervention helping white middle-class children learn to read, may not necessarily yield insights for how to best teach reading to children in other demographics. Debates over “the science of reading” in general have lasted decades, with researchers arguing over constantly changing “recommendations ,” such as whether to teach phonics or the use of context cues.

A correlation – a student who bullies other students and plays violent video games – may not be causation . We do not know if the student became a bully because of playing violent video games. Only experts within a field would be able to notice such differences, and even then, experts do not always agree on what they notice.

As individuals, we can very often be limited by our own experiences. Let’s say in my life I only see white swans. I might form the knowledge that only white swans exist. Maybe I write a manuscript about my lifetime of observations, concluding that all swans are white. I submit that manuscript to a journal, and a “peer,” someone who also has observed a lot of swans, says, “Wait a minute, I’ve seen black swans.” That peer would communicate back to me their observations so that I can refine my knowledge.

The peer plays a pivotal role evaluating observations, with the overall goal of advancing knowledge. For example, if the above scenario were reversed, and peer reviewers who all believed that all swans were white came across the first study observing a black swan, the study would receive a lot of attention as researchers scrambled to replicate that observation. So why was a first-year graduate student getting to stand in for an expert? Why would my review count the same as a veteran’s review? One answer: The process relies almost entirely on unpaid labor .

Despite the fact that peers are professionals, peer review is not a profession.

As a result, the same overworked scholars often receive the bulk of the peer review requests. Besides the labor inequity, a small pool of experts can lead to a narrowed process of what is publishable or what counts as knowledge, directly threatening diversity of perspectives and scholars .

Without a large enough reviewer pool, the process can easily fall victim to politics, arising from a small community recognizing each other’s work and compromising conflicts of interest. Many of the issues with peer review can be addressed by professionalizing the field, either through official recognition or compensation.

Value despite challenges

Despite these challenges, I still tell my students that peer review offers the best method for evaluating studies and advancing knowledge. Consider the statistical phenomenon suggesting that groups of people are more likely to arrive at “right answers” than individuals.

In his book “ The Wisdom of Crowds ,” author James Surowiecki tells the story of a county fair in 1906, where fairgoers guessed the weight of an ox. Sir Francis Galton averaged the 787 guesses and arrived at 1,197 pounds. The ox weighed 1,198 pounds.

When it comes to science and the reproduction of ideas, the wisdom of the many can account for individual outliers. Fortunately, and ironically, this is how science discredited Galton’s take on eugenics, which has overshadowed his contributions to science .

As a process, peer review theoretically works. The question is whether the peer will get the support needed to effectively conduct the review.

• Peer review
• Retractions
• Academic journal
• Scholarship
• Higher ed attainment

Project Offier - Diversity & Inclusion

Senior Lecturer - Earth System Science

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 2 September 2022.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, frequently asked questions about peer review.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymised) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymised comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymised) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymised) review – where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymised – does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimises potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymise everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimise back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarise the argument in your own words

Summarising the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organised. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticised, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the ‘compliment sandwich’, where you ‘sandwich’ your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarised or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilising rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project – provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well regarded.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field.

It acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, September 02). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/peer-reviews/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a double-blind study | introduction & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, data cleaning | a guide with examples & steps.

Making Peer Review More Transparent with Open Annotation

By heatherstaines | 13 September, 2017

Crossposted on ORCID as a part of Peer Review Week 2017

Annotation can enhance all types of peer review, including single- and double-blind, open review, and post-publication peer review. By connecting observations, questions and suggestions to text selections, annotations enable a precise, fine-grained collaborative conversation on top of documents that can persist across versions and even after publication. Annotating in groups, both private ones for closed reviews or public-facing groups for open or post-publication reviews, colleagues and peers can provide a variety of different kinds of feedback using different models — even on the same article.

Hypothesis is an organization dedicated to the development and spread of open, standards-based annotation technologies and practices that enable anyone to annotate anywhere. Publishers embed Hypothesis in their platforms to support pre-publication workflows like peer review and post-publication engagement with invited experts and general readers. Scientists and researchers use Hypothesis to engage with documents and their peers, organize research, and embed related resources on top of existing texts. Educators and students in K12 and higher education annotate with Hypothesis to embed teaching and learning directly in digital content. Journalists use Hypothesis to connect and discuss documents in investigative research and enrich coverage of other texts.

Hypothesis and ORCID have a longstanding collaboration to connect scholarly identifiers in publication workflows, documents, and annotations to establish reliable mechanisms that support trust, attribution and transparency across all scholarship. Scholars can already add their ORCIDs to their Hypothesis profiles and publishers and platforms that use ORCID for authentication can now provision their users with annotation capabilities automatically.

Traditional Peer Review

While manuscript submission systems have automated many parts of the traditional peer review process, until now the reviewer work process has changed little. Critique is still delivered via an unwieldy long-form document that references page, paragraph, and line numbers, sending editors and authors on scavenger hunts to track down related text. Further, as the revision process proceeds, all those numbers can be rendered meaningless as the text changes. Inline annotation brings the critique directly over the relevant text and allows a fluid conversation to unfold with editorial guidance.

Open source annotation frameworks like Hypothesis allow submission systems to incorporate annotation directly into their existing web apps, even hosting the annotations locally if they prefer. APIs enable annotated reviews to flow into dashboards for editors, reviewers, and authors, respecting granular permissions that indicate who can (or should) see various types of feedback. Additional capabilities like custom tagging or filtering can be added easily. Authors and reviewers can see the annotations in context atop the documents themselves and via summary documents like decision letters. Hypothesis’ deep linking also enables reviewers and authors to connect specific passages to additional resources across the web to augment the review process and the final manuscript.

Post-publication Peer Review

Post-publication or crowdsourced peer review is another iteration on traditional peer review, but even here a number of challenges remain. Readers may lack context without access to data or additional resources that traditional peer reviewers might receive. All comments may well be lumped into a single bucket irrespective of reviewer expertise. Reader comments that live on blogs or on Twitter may well not connect back to the original article, so other readers don’t even know that such feedback exists. Further, post-publication reviewers might submit corrections or updates that also don’t connect effectively back to original documents. With the way that content is disseminated today on multiple platforms, readers may well be contributing feedback only on one copy of many live on the web.

Annotation technology can help remove these barriers. Through the use of in-line annotation, additional materials can be connected through deep linking, by authors, journal editors, or post-publication reviewers. Readers can tie their feedback to particular parts of the article according to their expertise, making it easier for other readers to hone in on those precise areas. Deep linking can also connect discussions taking place on other platforms to the publisher version of record, which can also be used to provide corrections that are visible to readers. More importantly, relational URLs, DOIs, and PDF fingerprinting can connect reviewer comments across multiple copies of articles published in varying document formats on different hosting platforms.

Peer Review of Pre-prints, Data, and More

Outside of journals — for preprints, conference proceedings, textual data sets and other scholarly works that fall outside of the traditional pre-publication review process — annotation can provide an equally powerful collaborative capability. Only a tiny percentage of the scholarly literature even offers the most rudimentary form of commenting capability, so generally scholarship online lives in a silent place without easily discoverable discussion or critical review that can help improve the work or inform others. Where it does exist, commenting mostly fails to deliver a meaningful transport layer for peer feedback due to its lack of specific anchoring in texts and its lack of mechanisms to connect user identities to scholarly credentials via ORCID and other identity systems. As pre-prints become part of peer review workflows, there is a need for reviewer remarks to flow with manuscripts into production and even through to publication of the versions of record. Various innovations have been tried over the years, including overlay journals like Discrete Analysis. These suffer from the same fundamental problem: they operate at a distance from the article itself. Annotation is a powerful mechanism that overcomes this limitation and can enable experimentation with innovative approaches to peer feedback in a way that’s fundamentally more precise, discoverable and flexible.

Hypothesis and Peer Review

Bringing a powerful toolchain to the workflow of editors, reviewers, and researchers fits with the Hypothesis mission of bringing annotation to all knowledge. By empowering peer review processes with the same basic tools that researchers use in writing and updating their manuscripts, Hypothesis harnesses the power of standards-based and interoperable technologies that fulfill the promise of the web. We are excited to work with partners to explore how annotation can make peer review more transparent.

If you’re interested in seeing how Hypothesis works — whether as an editor, an author, or other reviewer — you can experiment right away, before making technical integrations, by setting up your own private Hypothesis groups to add annotations to your journals, preprints and other documents.

Get in touch to learn more about peer review using open annotation with Hypothesis.

Share this article

The Peer-Review Dilemma

Scientific publication can be a constraining, flattening, and maddening process—but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Updated at 11:06 a.m. ET on October 3, 2023

In recent months, two loud public discussions have taken up the question of what scientists really think of their research. “I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” the climatologist Patrick Brown wrote in an essay posted earlier this month, just days after his research had appeared in the journal Nature . The paper’s main finding, that global warming makes extreme wildfires more common, was based on a willful oversimplification of reality, he confessed—and it did not represent his private view that other factors are as or more important.

Another story came out this summer, during the congressional inquiry into COVID’s origins. In this case, House Republicans accused the virologist Kristian Andersen and his colleagues of downplaying the possibility that the coronavirus had leaked out of a lab. A House subcommittee found that the language of a crucial, early paper written by this group that ruled out the “lab-leak theory” had been altered during peer review to make its conclusions “stronger.” Andersen acknowledged that the paper’s blanket dismissal of “any type of laboratory-based scenario” was added in response to comments by the journal’s editor and peer reviewers. But he said this was just part of the normal, iterative scientific process, and that the updated text reflected his beliefs at the time. “The process of peer review means that you incorporate changes, you shorten it down, you make some of the language punchier because you don’t have three sentences to write the same thing, you only have one,” Andersen told investigators. “That’s just part of peer review, scientific publishing.” House Republicans described the publication process differently: as a cover-up . (Of course, some Republicans have seized on the COVID-origins debate for their own political gain.)

Each of these incidents brought demands that the affected papers be retracted —not because they contained fraudulent data or false facts but rather on the grounds that their authors had supposedly been hiding doubts about their own conclusions. Neither paper has been taken down. The editor in chief of Nature did call out Brown’s “poor research practices” and say that the journal is “carefully considering the implications of his stated actions.” (Brown has said that he stands by his research and that “there is nothing explicitly wrong with the paper,” but that “molding the presentation of the research for a high-impact journal made it less useful than it could have been.”) The editor of Nature Medicine , the journal that published Andersen’s paper, said that retraction was unwarranted.

Researchers tend to get into trouble when their published numbers have been faked, or when their math is incorrect. Other matters of dubious judgment—whether pertaining to a study’s design or its interpretation—would fall under the more permissive auspices of scholarly debate. The accusations against Brown and Andersen, however, propose a novel form of misbehavior: the crime of insincerity.

This newly prominent offense aligns with the nation’s mood. In today’s skeptical environment , any outside influence on the work of scientists may be cast as covert manipulation, if not censorship. Brown publicly confessed that he held back his true feelings in order to get the work published in a top journal—that sort of publication is a near-requirement for academic scientists. Prestige periodicals, he claimed, demand obsequious devotion to the most alarming possible narrative about climate change. If he’s right, then peer review—once a means of making scientific work balanced and consensus-driven—now serves to stifle disagreements, and deferring to it would be a form of surrender to establishment elites. The most important aspect of an article would be whether it is heartfelt.

But that is far too simple—and cynical—a way to look at science, which is a muddy, human endeavor. Every study is strategic. Each requires choices about how to design the analysis and explain the results. Yes, Brown made his choices with a particular conclusion in mind, one he thought would be acceptable to scientific gatekeepers. And while Andersen’s COVID-origins paper was in progress, the authors were clearly attuned (like all of us were) to the political environment of early 2020. But their stories are not exceptional . As an academic physician, I’ve contributed to papers for medical journals and fielded the demands of peer reviewers, however parochial they may be. I can’t say that I’ve always held the line on my every belief or conviction. I’ve toned down criticism of professional colleagues. I’ve hewed to the preferred phrasing of my editors. (I’ve also played the part of narrow-minded reviewer myself.)

The academic half of me feels that this represents at most a minor breach of principles: Getting useful data or an interesting idea into the literature is worth a few compromises around the edges. But the physician half becomes indignant at the prospect of insincerity. The framing of a paper helps determine how research is received and understood. Subtle choices in its assumptions, figures, and conclusion may, for instance, encourage readers to believe that the most apocalyptic predictions about climate change are inevitable, or that the lab-leak hypothesis has never been more than a conspiracy theory. Anti-vaccine ideas also gain traction in this way. By tempering their rhetoric and zooming in on discrete claims, vaccine doubters can transform a questionable ideology into a facsimile of healthy skepticism, and publish watered-down versions of their core theories in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Joseph Ladapo, the vaccine-skeptical surgeon general of Florida, has been a prominent user of this motte-and-bailey strategy. He has consistently been a vocal detractor of the COVID shots. He’s called them an “ unsafe medication ” and said he’s not sure that anyone should be getting inoculated this far into the pandemic—yet when his department released a scientific analysis last year suggesting that vaccination may increase the risk of cardiac death, its conclusion was presented with the mealymouthed restraint of formal scientific inquiry: “The risk associated with mRNA vaccination should be weighed against the risk associated with COVID-19 infection,” it said, then cautioned that the results were preliminary. But shortly after putting out these data, Ladapo recommended that all men under 40 avoid the vaccine. If the language in Andersen’s paper was punched up for publication, the language in the surgeon general’s must have been tamped down. (Ladapo’s office did not respond to inquiries.)

Ladapo has faced more scrutiny than other vaccine skeptics because of his influential public post and affiliation with Governor Ron DeSantis. Numerous media outlets have run stories undermining the validity of Florida’s vaccine study, and the Tampa Bay Times obtained draft versions of the paper revealing that, prior to release, results showing that COVID infection posed a greater risk of cardiac death than the vaccines did were removed. Ladapo also cut an analysis showing that the risk of cardiac death to young men from vaccination was not significant. Critics called the changes a “ lie by omission .” A review by a faculty committee at the University of Florida, where Ladapo is a tenured professor, found that he may have violated the school’s research-integrity standards. The committee report did not allege that he had committed “research misconduct” in the classic sense. Instead, it raised the squishier concern that he had engaged in “careless, irregular, and contentious” research practices. (The university declined to investigate, saying that Ladapo’s work as surgeon general was outside their purview.)

Ladapo brushed off the criticism, saying that he had revised the paper based on his scientific expertise. He was simply making choices about how to present his research, and those choices happened to support the conclusion that would be most amenable to a specific audience. Truthfully, his behavior may be dangerous, but it is not all that unusual. A large swath of academic literature could reasonably be described as “careless” or “contentious.” In 2019, I published an article describing how poor methodology in my own field of pathology commonly leads to some of the very same questionable scientific behaviors that the faculty report accused Ladapo of committing. The blowback to Ladapo’s paper—and to Andersen’s and Brown’s—has more to do with ongoing political conflicts than any specific, egregious details of its presentation. No researcher is immune to bias or the impulse to spin their findings in order to advance their private goals. Some are just better at keeping themselves out of the spotlight.

Is scientific insincerity really a problem? Facts, as the saying goes, don’t care about our feelings; science is supposed to be the land of facts. Data are presented, discussed, confirmed, or discredited—all on their own terms. Belief has nothing to do with it, and forensically dissecting an author’s motivations has little practical value. But the public’s skepticism of science remains significant . People want to know what the research community might be keeping from them. Brown’s essay, which accused scientific journals of bias, was published by The Free Press , an outlet devoted to “stories that are ignored or misconstrued in the service of an ideological narrative.” The Free Press ’s science section is awash in references to censorship, deception, and lies. Only bad news is newsworthy in some corners of the media; shady science has become a dominant narrative in its own right.

The Andersen, Brown, and Ladapo controversies suggest that scientists’ personal views—and the way they get run through the publication meat grinder—are likely to remain a source of scandal. When an unpalatable result cannot be dismissed out of hand, we turn to a simpler explanation: human nature. The science is wrong because the scientists are being insincere. It’s too easy to assume that if they’d only tell us what they really think, the facts would be on our side.

• Policy & Compliance
• Peer Review Policies and Practices

Revisions to the NIH Fellowship Application and Review Process

NIH is revising the application and review criteria for fellowship applications, beginning with those submitted January 25, 2025 and beyond. This page describes the goals of the change, implications for those writing and reviewing fellowship applications, and provides links to training and other resources.

Fellowship applications submitted on or after January 25, 2025 will follow a revised application and review criteria. The goal of the changes is to improve the chances that the most promising fellowship candidates will be consistently identified by scientific review panels. The changes will:

• Better focus reviewer attention on three key assessments: the fellowship candidate’s preparedness and potential, research training plan, and commitment to the candidate
• Ensure a broad range of candidates and research training contexts can be recognized as meritorious by clarifying and simplifying the language in the application and review criteria
• Reduce bias in review by emphasizing the commitment to the candidate without undue consideration of sponsor and institutional reputation

Background  

This page is designed to help you learn more about the peer review process and why we’re revising the application and review process for NIH fellowship applications submitted for due dates on or after January 25, 2025.

Changes to Fellowship Applications  

Learn more about the changes being made to fellowship application forms and instructions for due dates on or after January 25, 2025.

Changes to the Fellowship Review Criteria  

Learn more about the changes being made to the fellowship review criteria for applications submitted for due dates on or after January 25, 2025.

Candidate Guidance  

This page provides guidance for candidates applying to fellowships for due dates on or after January 25, 2025

Reviewer Guidance (Coming in 2025)

Reviewers will be provided training and guidance materials in Spring 2025 in time for the first review meetings held in the summer of 2025 using the revised review criteria.

FAQs  

Find answers to your questions about the revisions to fellowship application and review criteria.

Training and Resources  

Training and resources, including presentations, webinars, and other resources to help you understand the revised fellowship application and peer review process are found on this site.

Notices, Statements, and Reports  

This page provides links to Notices, blog posts, press releases, and other background reports on the revised fellowship application and review criteria.

This page last updated on: April 18, 2024

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.37(16); 2022 Apr 25

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles

Edward barroga.

1 Department of General Education, Graduate School of Nursing Science, St. Luke’s International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Glafera Janet Matanguihan

2 Department of Biological Sciences, Messiah University, Mechanicsburg, PA, USA.

The development of research questions and the subsequent hypotheses are prerequisites to defining the main research purpose and specific objectives of a study. Consequently, these objectives determine the study design and research outcome. The development of research questions is a process based on knowledge of current trends, cutting-edge studies, and technological advances in the research field. Excellent research questions are focused and require a comprehensive literature search and in-depth understanding of the problem being investigated. Initially, research questions may be written as descriptive questions which could be developed into inferential questions. These questions must be specific and concise to provide a clear foundation for developing hypotheses. Hypotheses are more formal predictions about the research outcomes. These specify the possible results that may or may not be expected regarding the relationship between groups. Thus, research questions and hypotheses clarify the main purpose and specific objectives of the study, which in turn dictate the design of the study, its direction, and outcome. Studies developed from good research questions and hypotheses will have trustworthy outcomes with wide-ranging social and health implications.

INTRODUCTION

Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses. 1 , 2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results. 3 , 4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the inception of novel studies and the ethical testing of ideas. 5 , 6

It is crucial to have knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative research 2 as both types of research involve writing research questions and hypotheses. 7 However, these crucial elements of research are sometimes overlooked; if not overlooked, then framed without the forethought and meticulous attention it needs. Planning and careful consideration are needed when developing quantitative or qualitative research, particularly when conceptualizing research questions and hypotheses. 4

There is a continuing need to support researchers in the creation of innovative research questions and hypotheses, as well as for journal articles that carefully review these elements. 1 When research questions and hypotheses are not carefully thought of, unethical studies and poor outcomes usually ensue. Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own. Examples from the authors and peer-reviewed scientific articles in the healthcare field are provided to illustrate key points.

DEFINITIONS AND RELATIONSHIP OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

A research question is what a study aims to answer after data analysis and interpretation. The answer is written in length in the discussion section of the paper. Thus, the research question gives a preview of the different parts and variables of the study meant to address the problem posed in the research question. 1 An excellent research question clarifies the research writing while facilitating understanding of the research topic, objective, scope, and limitations of the study. 5

On the other hand, a research hypothesis is an educated statement of an expected outcome. This statement is based on background research and current knowledge. 8 , 9 The research hypothesis makes a specific prediction about a new phenomenon 10 or a formal statement on the expected relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. 3 , 11 It provides a tentative answer to the research question to be tested or explored. 4

Hypotheses employ reasoning to predict a theory-based outcome. 10 These can also be developed from theories by focusing on components of theories that have not yet been observed. 10 The validity of hypotheses is often based on the testability of the prediction made in a reproducible experiment. 8

Conversely, hypotheses can also be rephrased as research questions. Several hypotheses based on existing theories and knowledge may be needed to answer a research question. Developing ethical research questions and hypotheses creates a research design that has logical relationships among variables. These relationships serve as a solid foundation for the conduct of the study. 4 , 11 Haphazardly constructed research questions can result in poorly formulated hypotheses and improper study designs, leading to unreliable results. Thus, the formulations of relevant research questions and verifiable hypotheses are crucial when beginning research. 12

CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Excellent research questions are specific and focused. These integrate collective data and observations to confirm or refute the subsequent hypotheses. Well-constructed hypotheses are based on previous reports and verify the research context. These are realistic, in-depth, sufficiently complex, and reproducible. More importantly, these hypotheses can be addressed and tested. 13

There are several characteristics of well-developed hypotheses. Good hypotheses are 1) empirically testable 7 , 10 , 11 , 13 ; 2) backed by preliminary evidence 9 ; 3) testable by ethical research 7 , 9 ; 4) based on original ideas 9 ; 5) have evidenced-based logical reasoning 10 ; and 6) can be predicted. 11 Good hypotheses can infer ethical and positive implications, indicating the presence of a relationship or effect relevant to the research theme. 7 , 11 These are initially developed from a general theory and branch into specific hypotheses by deductive reasoning. In the absence of a theory to base the hypotheses, inductive reasoning based on specific observations or findings form more general hypotheses. 10

TYPES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions and hypotheses are developed according to the type of research, which can be broadly classified into quantitative and qualitative research. We provide a summary of the types of research questions and hypotheses under quantitative and qualitative research categories in Table 1 .

Research questions in quantitative research

In quantitative research, research questions inquire about the relationships among variables being investigated and are usually framed at the start of the study. These are precise and typically linked to the subject population, dependent and independent variables, and research design. 1 Research questions may also attempt to describe the behavior of a population in relation to one or more variables, or describe the characteristics of variables to be measured ( descriptive research questions ). 1 , 5 , 14 These questions may also aim to discover differences between groups within the context of an outcome variable ( comparative research questions ), 1 , 5 , 14 or elucidate trends and interactions among variables ( relationship research questions ). 1 , 5 We provide examples of descriptive, comparative, and relationship research questions in quantitative research in Table 2 .

Hypotheses in quantitative research

In quantitative research, hypotheses predict the expected relationships among variables. 15 Relationships among variables that can be predicted include 1) between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable ( simple hypothesis ) or 2) between two or more independent and dependent variables ( complex hypothesis ). 4 , 11 Hypotheses may also specify the expected direction to be followed and imply an intellectual commitment to a particular outcome ( directional hypothesis ) 4 . On the other hand, hypotheses may not predict the exact direction and are used in the absence of a theory, or when findings contradict previous studies ( non-directional hypothesis ). 4 In addition, hypotheses can 1) define interdependency between variables ( associative hypothesis ), 4 2) propose an effect on the dependent variable from manipulation of the independent variable ( causal hypothesis ), 4 3) state a negative relationship between two variables ( null hypothesis ), 4 , 11 , 15 4) replace the working hypothesis if rejected ( alternative hypothesis ), 15 explain the relationship of phenomena to possibly generate a theory ( working hypothesis ), 11 5) involve quantifiable variables that can be tested statistically ( statistical hypothesis ), 11 6) or express a relationship whose interlinks can be verified logically ( logical hypothesis ). 11 We provide examples of simple, complex, directional, non-directional, associative, causal, null, alternative, working, statistical, and logical hypotheses in quantitative research, as well as the definition of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in Table 3 .

Research questions in qualitative research

Unlike research questions in quantitative research, research questions in qualitative research are usually continuously reviewed and reformulated. The central question and associated subquestions are stated more than the hypotheses. 15 The central question broadly explores a complex set of factors surrounding the central phenomenon, aiming to present the varied perspectives of participants. 15

There are varied goals for which qualitative research questions are developed. These questions can function in several ways, such as to 1) identify and describe existing conditions ( contextual research question s); 2) describe a phenomenon ( descriptive research questions ); 3) assess the effectiveness of existing methods, protocols, theories, or procedures ( evaluation research questions ); 4) examine a phenomenon or analyze the reasons or relationships between subjects or phenomena ( explanatory research questions ); or 5) focus on unknown aspects of a particular topic ( exploratory research questions ). 5 In addition, some qualitative research questions provide new ideas for the development of theories and actions ( generative research questions ) or advance specific ideologies of a position ( ideological research questions ). 1 Other qualitative research questions may build on a body of existing literature and become working guidelines ( ethnographic research questions ). Research questions may also be broadly stated without specific reference to the existing literature or a typology of questions ( phenomenological research questions ), may be directed towards generating a theory of some process ( grounded theory questions ), or may address a description of the case and the emerging themes ( qualitative case study questions ). 15 We provide examples of contextual, descriptive, evaluation, explanatory, exploratory, generative, ideological, ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and qualitative case study research questions in qualitative research in Table 4 , and the definition of qualitative hypothesis-generating research in Table 5 .

Qualitative studies usually pose at least one central research question and several subquestions starting with How or What . These research questions use exploratory verbs such as explore or describe . These also focus on one central phenomenon of interest, and may mention the participants and research site. 15

Hypotheses in qualitative research

Hypotheses in qualitative research are stated in the form of a clear statement concerning the problem to be investigated. Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes. 2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed-methods research question can be developed. 1

FRAMEWORKS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Research questions followed by hypotheses should be developed before the start of the study. 1 , 12 , 14 It is crucial to develop feasible research questions on a topic that is interesting to both the researcher and the scientific community. This can be achieved by a meticulous review of previous and current studies to establish a novel topic. Specific areas are subsequently focused on to generate ethical research questions. The relevance of the research questions is evaluated in terms of clarity of the resulting data, specificity of the methodology, objectivity of the outcome, depth of the research, and impact of the study. 1 , 5 These aspects constitute the FINER criteria (i.e., Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant). 1 Clarity and effectiveness are achieved if research questions meet the FINER criteria. In addition to the FINER criteria, Ratan et al. described focus, complexity, novelty, feasibility, and measurability for evaluating the effectiveness of research questions. 14

The PICOT and PEO frameworks are also used when developing research questions. 1 The following elements are addressed in these frameworks, PICOT: P-population/patients/problem, I-intervention or indicator being studied, C-comparison group, O-outcome of interest, and T-timeframe of the study; PEO: P-population being studied, E-exposure to preexisting conditions, and O-outcome of interest. 1 Research questions are also considered good if these meet the “FINERMAPS” framework: Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant, Manageable, Appropriate, Potential value/publishable, and Systematic. 14

As we indicated earlier, research questions and hypotheses that are not carefully formulated result in unethical studies or poor outcomes. To illustrate this, we provide some examples of ambiguous research question and hypotheses that result in unclear and weak research objectives in quantitative research ( Table 6 ) 16 and qualitative research ( Table 7 ) 17 , and how to transform these ambiguous research question(s) and hypothesis(es) into clear and good statements.

a These statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

b These statements are direct quotes from Higashihara and Horiuchi. 16

a This statement is a direct quote from Shimoda et al. 17

The other statements were composed for comparison and illustrative purposes only.

CONSTRUCTING RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

To construct effective research questions and hypotheses, it is very important to 1) clarify the background and 2) identify the research problem at the outset of the research, within a specific timeframe. 9 Then, 3) review or conduct preliminary research to collect all available knowledge about the possible research questions by studying theories and previous studies. 18 Afterwards, 4) construct research questions to investigate the research problem. Identify variables to be accessed from the research questions 4 and make operational definitions of constructs from the research problem and questions. Thereafter, 5) construct specific deductive or inductive predictions in the form of hypotheses. 4 Finally, 6) state the study aims . This general flow for constructing effective research questions and hypotheses prior to conducting research is shown in Fig. 1 .

Research questions are used more frequently in qualitative research than objectives or hypotheses. 3 These questions seek to discover, understand, explore or describe experiences by asking “What” or “How.” The questions are open-ended to elicit a description rather than to relate variables or compare groups. The questions are continually reviewed, reformulated, and changed during the qualitative study. 3 Research questions are also used more frequently in survey projects than hypotheses in experiments in quantitative research to compare variables and their relationships.

Hypotheses are constructed based on the variables identified and as an if-then statement, following the template, ‘If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.’ At this stage, some ideas regarding expectations from the research to be conducted must be drawn. 18 Then, the variables to be manipulated (independent) and influenced (dependent) are defined. 4 Thereafter, the hypothesis is stated and refined, and reproducible data tailored to the hypothesis are identified, collected, and analyzed. 4 The hypotheses must be testable and specific, 18 and should describe the variables and their relationships, the specific group being studied, and the predicted research outcome. 18 Hypotheses construction involves a testable proposition to be deduced from theory, and independent and dependent variables to be separated and measured separately. 3 Therefore, good hypotheses must be based on good research questions constructed at the start of a study or trial. 12

In summary, research questions are constructed after establishing the background of the study. Hypotheses are then developed based on the research questions. Thus, it is crucial to have excellent research questions to generate superior hypotheses. In turn, these would determine the research objectives and the design of the study, and ultimately, the outcome of the research. 12 Algorithms for building research questions and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 2 for quantitative research and in Fig. 3 for qualitative research.

EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Descriptive research question (quantitative research)
• - Presents research variables to be assessed (distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes)
• “BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 was identified, its clinical and biological heterogeneity has been recognized. Identifying COVID-19 phenotypes might help guide basic, clinical, and translational research efforts.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the clinical spectrum of patients with COVID-19 contain distinct phenotypes and subphenotypes? ” 19
• EXAMPLE 2. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Shows interactions between dependent variable (static postural control) and independent variable (peripheral visual field loss)
• “Background: Integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive sensations contributes to postural control. People with peripheral visual field loss have serious postural instability. However, the directional specificity of postural stability and sensory reweighting caused by gradual peripheral visual field loss remain unclear.
• Research question: What are the effects of peripheral visual field loss on static postural control ?” 20
• EXAMPLE 3. Comparative research question (quantitative research)
• - Clarifies the difference among groups with an outcome variable (patients enrolled in COMPERA with moderate PH or severe PH in COPD) and another group without the outcome variable (patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH))
• “BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in COPD is a poorly investigated clinical condition.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: Which factors determine the outcome of PH in COPD?
• STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed the characteristics and outcome of patients enrolled in the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) with moderate or severe PH in COPD as defined during the 6th PH World Symposium who received medical therapy for PH and compared them with patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH) .” 21
• EXAMPLE 4. Exploratory research question (qualitative research)
• - Explores areas that have not been fully investigated (perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment) to have a deeper understanding of the research problem
• “Problem: Interventions for children with obesity lead to only modest improvements in BMI and long-term outcomes, and data are limited on the perspectives of families of children with obesity in clinic-based treatment. This scoping review seeks to answer the question: What is known about the perspectives of families and children who receive care in clinic-based child obesity treatment? This review aims to explore the scope of perspectives reported by families of children with obesity who have received individualized outpatient clinic-based obesity treatment.” 22
• EXAMPLE 5. Relationship research question (quantitative research)
• - Defines interactions between dependent variable (use of ankle strategies) and independent variable (changes in muscle tone)
• “Background: To maintain an upright standing posture against external disturbances, the human body mainly employs two types of postural control strategies: “ankle strategy” and “hip strategy.” While it has been reported that the magnitude of the disturbance alters the use of postural control strategies, it has not been elucidated how the level of muscle tone, one of the crucial parameters of bodily function, determines the use of each strategy. We have previously confirmed using forward dynamics simulations of human musculoskeletal models that an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. The objective of the present study was to experimentally evaluate a hypothesis: an increased muscle tone promotes the use of ankle strategies. Research question: Do changes in the muscle tone affect the use of ankle strategies ?” 23

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESES IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES

• EXAMPLE 1. Working hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - A hypothesis that is initially accepted for further research to produce a feasible theory
• “As fever may have benefit in shortening the duration of viral illness, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response when taken during the early stages of COVID-19 illness .” 24
• “In conclusion, it is plausible to hypothesize that the antipyretic efficacy of ibuprofen may be hindering the benefits of a fever response . The difference in perceived safety of these agents in COVID-19 illness could be related to the more potent efficacy to reduce fever with ibuprofen compared to acetaminophen. Compelling data on the benefit of fever warrant further research and review to determine when to treat or withhold ibuprofen for early stage fever for COVID-19 and other related viral illnesses .” 24
• EXAMPLE 2. Exploratory hypothesis (qualitative research)
• - Explores particular areas deeper to clarify subjective experience and develop a formal hypothesis potentially testable in a future quantitative approach
• “We hypothesized that when thinking about a past experience of help-seeking, a self distancing prompt would cause increased help-seeking intentions and more favorable help-seeking outcome expectations .” 25
• “Conclusion
• Although a priori hypotheses were not supported, further research is warranted as results indicate the potential for using self-distancing approaches to increasing help-seeking among some people with depressive symptomatology.” 25
• EXAMPLE 3. Hypothesis-generating research to establish a framework for hypothesis testing (qualitative research)
• “We hypothesize that compassionate care is beneficial for patients (better outcomes), healthcare systems and payers (lower costs), and healthcare providers (lower burnout). ” 26
• Compassionomics is the branch of knowledge and scientific study of the effects of compassionate healthcare. Our main hypotheses are that compassionate healthcare is beneficial for (1) patients, by improving clinical outcomes, (2) healthcare systems and payers, by supporting financial sustainability, and (3) HCPs, by lowering burnout and promoting resilience and well-being. The purpose of this paper is to establish a scientific framework for testing the hypotheses above . If these hypotheses are confirmed through rigorous research, compassionomics will belong in the science of evidence-based medicine, with major implications for all healthcare domains.” 26
• EXAMPLE 4. Statistical hypothesis (quantitative research)
• - An assumption is made about the relationship among several population characteristics ( gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD ). Validity is tested by statistical experiment or analysis ( chi-square test, Students t-test, and logistic regression analysis)
• “Our research investigated gender differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of adults with ADHD in a Japanese clinical sample. Due to unique Japanese cultural ideals and expectations of women's behavior that are in opposition to ADHD symptoms, we hypothesized that women with ADHD experience more difficulties and present more dysfunctions than men . We tested the following hypotheses: first, women with ADHD have more comorbidities than men with ADHD; second, women with ADHD experience more social hardships than men, such as having less full-time employment and being more likely to be divorced.” 27
• “Statistical Analysis
• ( text omitted ) Between-gender comparisons were made using the chi-squared test for categorical variables and Students t-test for continuous variables…( text omitted ). A logistic regression analysis was performed for employment status, marital status, and comorbidity to evaluate the independent effects of gender on these dependent variables.” 27

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS AS WRITTEN IN PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTS

• EXAMPLE 1. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “Pregnant women need skilled care during pregnancy and childbirth, but that skilled care is often delayed in some countries …( text omitted ). The focused antenatal care (FANC) model of WHO recommends that nurses provide information or counseling to all pregnant women …( text omitted ). Job aids are visual support materials that provide the right kind of information using graphics and words in a simple and yet effective manner. When nurses are not highly trained or have many work details to attend to, these job aids can serve as a content reminder for the nurses and can be used for educating their patients (Jennings, Yebadokpo, Affo, & Agbogbe, 2010) ( text omitted ). Importantly, additional evidence is needed to confirm how job aids can further improve the quality of ANC counseling by health workers in maternal care …( text omitted )” 28
• “ This has led us to hypothesize that the quality of ANC counseling would be better if supported by job aids. Consequently, a better quality of ANC counseling is expected to produce higher levels of awareness concerning the danger signs of pregnancy and a more favorable impression of the caring behavior of nurses .” 28
• “This study aimed to examine the differences in the responses of pregnant women to a job aid-supported intervention during ANC visit in terms of 1) their understanding of the danger signs of pregnancy and 2) their impression of the caring behaviors of nurses to pregnant women in rural Tanzania.” 28
• EXAMPLE 2. Background, hypotheses, and aims are provided
• “We conducted a two-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate and compare changes in salivary cortisol and oxytocin levels of first-time pregnant women between experimental and control groups. The women in the experimental group touched and held an infant for 30 min (experimental intervention protocol), whereas those in the control group watched a DVD movie of an infant (control intervention protocol). The primary outcome was salivary cortisol level and the secondary outcome was salivary oxytocin level.” 29
• “ We hypothesize that at 30 min after touching and holding an infant, the salivary cortisol level will significantly decrease and the salivary oxytocin level will increase in the experimental group compared with the control group .” 29
• EXAMPLE 3. Background, aim, and hypothesis are provided
• “In countries where the maternal mortality ratio remains high, antenatal education to increase Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness (BPCR) is considered one of the top priorities [1]. BPCR includes birth plans during the antenatal period, such as the birthplace, birth attendant, transportation, health facility for complications, expenses, and birth materials, as well as family coordination to achieve such birth plans. In Tanzania, although increasing, only about half of all pregnant women attend an antenatal clinic more than four times [4]. Moreover, the information provided during antenatal care (ANC) is insufficient. In the resource-poor settings, antenatal group education is a potential approach because of the limited time for individual counseling at antenatal clinics.” 30
• “This study aimed to evaluate an antenatal group education program among pregnant women and their families with respect to birth-preparedness and maternal and infant outcomes in rural villages of Tanzania.” 30
• “ The study hypothesis was if Tanzanian pregnant women and their families received a family-oriented antenatal group education, they would (1) have a higher level of BPCR, (2) attend antenatal clinic four or more times, (3) give birth in a health facility, (4) have less complications of women at birth, and (5) have less complications and deaths of infants than those who did not receive the education .” 30

Research questions and hypotheses are crucial components to any type of research, whether quantitative or qualitative. These questions should be developed at the very beginning of the study. Excellent research questions lead to superior hypotheses, which, like a compass, set the direction of research, and can often determine the successful conduct of the study. Many research studies have floundered because the development of research questions and subsequent hypotheses was not given the thought and meticulous attention needed. The development of research questions and hypotheses is an iterative process based on extensive knowledge of the literature and insightful grasp of the knowledge gap. Focused, concise, and specific research questions provide a strong foundation for constructing hypotheses which serve as formal predictions about the research outcomes. Research questions and hypotheses are crucial elements of research that should not be overlooked. They should be carefully thought of and constructed when planning research. This avoids unethical studies and poor outcomes by defining well-founded objectives that determine the design, course, and outcome of the study.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Conceptualization: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Methodology: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - original draft: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.
• Writing - review & editing: Barroga E, Matanguihan GJ.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

• MEDIA ROOM /
• Press Releases /

Vincent Lloyd, PhD, Named 2024 Guggenheim Fellowship Recipient

VILLANOVA, Pa. (April 19, 2024) – Vincent Lloyd, PhD, a professor of Theology and Religious Studies and Director of the Center for Political Theology at Villanova University, has been named a 2024 Guggenheim Fellow . Chosen through a rigorous application and peer review process from a pool of almost 3,000 applicants, Dr. Lloyd is one of 188 fellows selected for this prestigious fellowship based on “career achievement and exceptional promise.” In all, 52 scholarly disciplines and artistic fields, 84 academic institutions, 38 US states and the District of Columbia, and four Canadian provinces are represented in the 2024 Guggenheim Fellow class.      

Since its founding in 1925 by Senator Samuel Guggenheim, the Foundation has awarded over $400 million in fellowships to more than 19,000 fellows. Each fellow receives a monetary stipend to pursue independent work at the highest level under “the freest possible conditions.” Many Fellows’ projects directly respond to timely issues such as democracy and politics, identity, disability activism, machine learning, incarceration, climate change and community.

"Congratulations to Dr. Lloyd on this well-deserved recognition," said Adele Lindenmeyr, PhD, William and Julia Moulden Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. "The Guggenheim Fellowship is among the most prestigious awards in academia, recognizing individuals whose work demonstrates exceptional depth, promise and impact. Dr. Lloyd’s selection reflects his distinguished scholarly reputation and the timeliness of his compelling new project on the controversial Black intellectual and radical, Harold Cruse."

Selected as a Guggenheim Fellow in discipline of Intellectual & Cultural History, Dr. Lloyd’s research and teaching focuses on issues and trends related to religion in politics and race, and their impact on social change. Most recently, he is the author of  Black Dignity: The Struggle Against Domination  (Yale University Press), co-author of  Break Every Yoke: Religion, Justice, and the Abolition of Prisons  (Oxford University Press), and co-editor of the forthcoming  Political Theology Reimagined  (Duke University Press). Dr. Lloyd has co-edited the journal  Political Theology  for the past 12 years, and he co-edits the Transforming Political Theologies book series. Dr. Lloyd previously held fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Louisville Institute, Durham University (UK), Emory University and Notre Dame.

During his Guggenheim Fellowship, Dr. Lloyd will be writing  Harold Cruse: Contrarian Radical , a biography of one of the forgotten founders of Black studies, to be published by Yale University Press.

About the Guggenheim Foundation : Created and initially funded in 1925, by US Senator Simon and Olga Guggenheim in memory of their son John Simon, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation has sought to “further the development of scholars and artists by assisting them to engage in research in any field of knowledge and creation in any of the arts, under the freest possible conditions.”

Since its establishment, the Foundation has granted over $400 million in Fellowships to more than 19,000 individuals, among whom are more than 125 Nobel laureates, members of all the national academies, winners of the Pulitzer Prize, Fields Medal, Turing Award, Bancroft Prize, National Book Award, and other internationally recognized honors. The broad range of fields of study is a unique characteristic of the Fellowship program.

The Foundation centers the talents and instincts of the Fellows, whose passions often have broad and immediate social impact. For example, in 1936, Zora Neale Hurston wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God with the support of a Guggenheim Fellowship and dedicated it to the Foundation’s first president, Henry Allen Moe. Photographer Robert Frank’s seminal book, The Americans, was the product of a cross-country tour supported by two Guggenheim Fellowships. The accomplishments of other early Fellows like e.e. cummings, Jennifer Doudna, Jacob Lawrence, Rachel Carson, James Baldwin, Martha Graham, and Linus Pauling also demonstrate the strength of the Foundation’s core values and the power and impact of its approach. More information at gf.org

About Villanova University: Since 1842, Villanova University’s Augustinian Catholic intellectual tradition has been the cornerstone of an academic community in which students learn to think critically, act compassionately and succeed while serving others. There are more than 10,000 undergraduate, graduate and law students in the University's six colleges—the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Villanova School of Business, the College of Engineering, the M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing, the College of Professional Studies and the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law. Ranked among the nation’s top universities, Villanova supports its students’ intellectual growth and prepares them to become ethical leaders who create positive change everywhere life takes them. For more, visit www.villanova.edu .

VILLANOVA MEDIA ROOM

• Press Releases
• Media Expert Center