We must reckon with the fact that peer reviewing is a critical aspect of the research world. It goes without saying that peer reviewing articles is perhaps the only way of ensuring that the research work disseminated for public consumption, is quality controlled. While peer reviewing is such an important practice in the research community for purposes such as ensuring validity, avoidance of plagiarism, act of good faith for honor and respect for intellectual property rights, it is not the panacea in the realization of quality in the research field. The pursuit of quality and excellence is still, for the most part, a function of the researcher’s will and moral conscience. Still, one cannot emphasize enough how imperative it is for a researcher to embark on the noble process of peer reviewing. Allow me to state two obvious reasons why peer reviewing should be undertaken by a researcher.
Scholars admit that perhaps the most influential role of peer reviewing is its important role in building a collective knowledge base. Scholastic journals provide the most comprehensive, contemporary, and accurate information in all sectors of study. For obvious reasons, the conglomeration of researchers in one area of study i.e. family studies in the pursuit of the most accurate representation of research is the zenith of team work at the altar of credibility. Amongst other reasons, this would be probably the sole reason why I would encourage a learned fellow to conduct peer reviewing.
Using the article of David Solomon titled “The Role of Peer Review for Scholarly Journals in the Information Age”, and Virgina Marrow’s “Should the world really be free of ‘child labour’? Some reflections”, I will demonstrate how one should know that an article is peer reviewed. First, we know that an article is peer reviewed because it is published in scholarly journal. Solomon’s article is published in the Journal of Electronic Publishing while Marrow’s article was published in the Journal of Childhood Studies.
Another method of determining whether an article is peer reviewed is by the credibility of the author. The author of the article must be an authority in the field of study. For example, in Family studies, the writer has to have a PhD or Masters or have relevant experience that gives them the knowledge and expertise to make conclusions or affirmations. Other ways include the ubiquity of references, and the use of citations. A paper devoid of proper citation and without referenced research would not sink in the sear of peer review. In methodological research, practitioner usually refrains while writing research reports on the idea of theoretical and methodological discussion. Focus is always given to empirical discussions and analytical aspects of data. Perhaps one shortcoming of overreliance on empirical data on reports is the confusion it relays on the consumers of such reports. There is the danger of habitual expectation that comes from conventional social-scientific practices. While this is good for credibility, it leaves out the vital aspect of the human word. This part is most responsible for credibility.
Lastly, the importance of peer reviewed article for a scholar is the authority that one garners after publishing one such document. It goes without saying that the more peer reviewed articles one publishes, the more prominent a one becomes in the area of study. Such publications can be an avenue for more income, used as references for future work, and also could be turned in for book publication.
References
ltman, D. G. 2002 Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do? JAMA 287;21:2765-2767. [doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2765 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2765] ]
Baxt, W. G., J. F. Waeckerle, J. Berlin, and M. L. Callahm. 1989. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance. Annals of Emergency Medicine 32:310-317. [doi: 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X] ]
Bloom, T. 2006. Systems: Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature. In Nature.http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html [http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html] .
Morrow, V. (2010). “Should the World Really Be Free of 'child Labour'? Some Reflections."Childhood 17.4: 435-40. Print.
Kumashiro, K. K. 2005. Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for JournalArticle Publication. Harvard Educational Review 75; 3:257-287.
Pocock, S. J., M. D. Hughes, and R. J. Lee. 1987. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 317:426-432.
Regehr, G., and G. Bordage. 2006. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.Medical Education 40:832-839. [d
