Course
Peer review
Academic publishing
Image

MERIT (Manuscript Evaluation Reflecting Intrinsic Tenets): A Framework for Efficient and Equitable Academic Peer Review

Published: Sep, 09 2024

Joseph F. Arboleda-Velasquez, MD, PhD

Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School. Associate Scientist at Mass Eye and Ear, a member of Mass General Brigham.

Correspondence: joseph_arboleda@meei.harvard.edu or at Schepens Eye Research Institute of Mass Eye and Ear, 20 Staniford Street, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic integrity and rigor in research dissemination. This process, bridging knowledge creation and publication, demands considerable time and effort from content creators, reviewers, and editors. Peer review often entails multiple iterations across various journals, requiring hundreds of hours of commitment and often leading to frustration. However, this investment can be fruitful, enhancing manuscript quality, correcting errors, and ensuring appropriate audience targeting. Collectively, peer review consumes millions of hours and incurs billions in costs, largely borne by funding agencies and governments. This scenario raises critical questions about optimizing the process and the potential impact of reviewer education on efficiency and outcomes.

Surprisingly, formal training for reviewers is scarce across undergraduate and graduate programs globally. Learning is predominantly informal, through mentorship or personal experience. Journals typically offer minimal guidance, relying on basic questions and rankings to assist editors. It is quite remarkable that such a loosely structured approach for peer review, with minimal guidance, is the norm for a process of great consequence. The outcomes of peer reviews can delay publications for years, significantly impact careers, and influence decisions on grants and promotions.

This course introduces novel tools and concepts to refine the peer review process: 1) The “Main Result Justification Sheet,” created to make reviews more efficient and transparent for readers; 2) “Publicon,” a term inspired by the fundamental units of quantum physics such as the photon, representing the minimum quantum of information necessary to advance a field and merit publication in a peer-reviewed journal; and 3) A MERIT-based peer review model (Manuscript Evaluation Reflecting Intrinsic Tenets), outlining new guidelines that base acceptance solely on the intrinsic merits of the manuscript, with assessments of potential audience engagement and distribution determined subsequently.

A key innovation of the MERIT-based model is the separation of the peer-review process from the distribution of the manuscript. Once a manuscript is validated through independent peer review, its distribution becomes a separate consideration. Authors or independent platforms can disseminate validated work efficiently, whether through evolving forms of what we currently call journals or social media. This separation ensures that the focus remains on the quality of the research itself, rather than on the prestige of the distributing entity.

This course is designed to provide a structured framework to academic peer review with the goal of elevating quality, fostering equity, and minimizing bias. The course includes interactive sections with open-ended and multiple choice questions to stimulate thought and understanding. This course is designed for both novices and seasoned reviewers, aiming to refine their skills and adapt to specific academic fields.

  1. Burnham JC. The Evolution of Editorial Peer Review. JAMA. 1990;263:1323-1329. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003

  2. Craig A, Lee C, Bala N & Taswell C. Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review. Brainiacs Journal 3 (1):I5B147D9D (2022). DOI: 10.48085/I5B147D9D

  3. Garcia JA, Rodriguez-Sanchez R, Fdez-Valdivia J. Fraud, specialization, and efficiency in peer review. Research Evaluation, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2022, Pages 15–23, DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvab021

  4. Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004

  5. Horbach SPJM. No time for that now! Qualitative changes in manuscript peer review during the Covid-19 pandemic. Research Evaluation, Volume 30, Issue 3, July 2021, Pages 231–239, DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa037

  6. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of Editorial Peer Review. A Systematic Review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-2786. DOI: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784

  7. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. ADVANCES IN INFORMATION SCIENCE. 10 December 2012 DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784

  8. Tennant JP. The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology Letters, Volume 365, Issue 19, October 2018, fny204, DOI: 10.1093/femsle/fny204

  9. Wingen T, Berkessel JB, and Dohle S. Caution, Preprint! Brief Explanations Allow Nonscientists to Differentiate Between Preprints and Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2022. DOI: 10.1177/25152459211070559

DOI: 10.61340/RWNG4653
Submitted:
9 March 2024
Accepted after peer review: 26 June 2024
Published online: September 9 2024
License: © 2024 Joseph Fitzgerald Arboleda-Velasquez. CC BY-NC-ND-4.0

Editor: Jan Manent
Reviewed by: Jesse Berry, DanVictor Ebirim, and Lucía González Buendía

Competing Interests
Dr. Arboleda-Velasquez is a co-founder and co-owner of Intelligent Science Group Inc (ISG), a parent company of ScienceBank. ISG played no role in the production of this content. This work was peer-reviewed via standard peer review managed by ScienceBank but has not undergone formal endorsement by the ScienceBank Editorial Board, and thus it is to be considered independent work.

Image
Article
Hypothyroidism
Endocrinology

A Novel Approach to the Levothyroxine Absorption Test Using Only Two Free T4 Measurements

By · Oct, 03 2024

Image
Article
Editorial
Alzheimer's

What is missing: “Prevent and cure Alzheimer's”

Image

By Dr. Francisco Lopera · Feb, 12 2024

Image
Case Report
NOTCH3
CADASIL

Unusual Predominant Memory Decline in an Early-Stage CADASIL Patient: A Four-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up of Hereditary Vascular Dementia

By · Jun, 24 2024

Image
Review article
Nanodiamonds
Breast cancer

Stem Cell-Nanodiamond Synergy: Efficacy in Breast Cancer

By · Sep, 03 2024

Join ScienceBank today and be part of the future of academic publishing