Peer Review: A Short Guide for Science Journalists to Evaluate Research Credibility
Peer review ensures research quality by expert evaluation of methodology, data, and findings. It filters flawed studies, refines strong ones, and aids science journalists in assessing credibility.
One of the primary roles of a science journalist is to report on scientific discoveries as clearly and accurately as possible. To do this effectively, the most reliable source of information is scientific publishing – the principal way researchers have to share their studies, results, and insights with the scientific community.
Understanding the fundamentals of scientific publishing is essential for journalists, particularly the peer-review process, which is frequently mentioned but often poorly understood. Familiarity with this process helps distinguish between high-quality research and less reliable findings.
What is peer review?
Peer review is the method through which the scientific community evaluates the quality of its own body of knowledge. Most scientific journals require submitted papers to undergo this rigorous review to get informed feedback on the quality of the data, methodology, and results. The process is typically carried out by experts in the relevant field, who assess the study's quality and contributions to advancing knowledge in the discipline. The primary goal of peer review is to ensure that published research meets high scientific standards by filtering out flawed or poorly designed articles and strengthening well-conducted studies.
When a research article is submitted to a scientific journal, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment and selection. If the paper meets basic criteria, editors then identify appropriate reviewers (usually at least two) whose expertise best aligns with the study's topic. Reviewers evaluate the validity and significance of the research and offer constructive feedback to improve the work.
There are several types of peer review, but the most commonly used are "single-blinded" and "double-blinded" peer review. In a single-blinded peer review, reviewers know the identity of the author(s), while authors do not know who the reviewers are. In a double-blinded peer review, instead, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
It is important to note that peer reviewing is a voluntary task – researchers are not paid for this endeavour, ensuring scientific production's trustworthiness. This has made it increasingly difficult for journals to find scholars willing to participate in the process, thus significantly slowing down the publishing process.
Reviewers play a central role in shaping the final form of a paper when assessing its quality. Besides providing recommendations to the journal on whether the article under review should be published as it is, revised (with either minor or major changes), or rejected, reviewers are also usually asked to provide comments and suggestions to authors on how to enhance their research.
Limitations and importance of peer review
While peer review is intended to improve the reliability and overall quality of available knowledge within a given field, it also has drawbacks. One major limitation is, as mentioned earlier, the lengthy review process, which considerably slows the dissemination of new findings within the scientific community.
In response to this, in the past few years, there has been an exponential increase in the practice of publishing "preprints," which are preliminary versions of studies shared on platforms such as BioRxiv or MedRxiv before peer review. This allows researchers to share their work more quickly; however, this comes at the expense of formal verification, increasing the risk of errors.
With the growing use of preprint repositories, journalists need to be able to recognise the varying levels of scrutiny that scientific articles undergo. This awareness helps them – and, in turn, their readers – critically evaluate the degree of uncertainty surrounding a study's findings.
Moreover, a thorough understanding of how scientific knowledge is internally validated equips science journalists to defend it against those who seek to undermine its credibility. Some demand absolute certainty from science. Others attempt to equate rigorous, peer-reviewed research with so-called "alternative facts" – claims that don't hold the same validity simply because they have not been widely scrutinised by an open, democratic community of experts.
Further readings:
