Here you can read our FREE Guide on BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection and see its solution.
Instructions of BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection
Week #2: Peer Review Reflection
This assignment was locked Jun 19, 2023 at 12:02pm.
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to reflect on what you have learned about Peer Review this week and to demonstrate you understand the key principles of peer review.
Task
Write a reflection that addresses questions relevant to Peer Review
Instructions
Put yourself in the shoes of an editor for a brand new science journal. As the editor-in-chief you will establish the type of peer review that the journal uses.
- What form of peer review would you plan to use (select from single-blind, double-blind, or open)?
- Explain why that is the method you would choose and include in your answer what advantages you see it having over the other two options.
- What would be your absolute last choice of peer review for your journal? Explain why this would be the one you would favor least of all.
- Describe what you see as the significance of peer review to the field of science.
- Check your reflection for spelling and grammar errors and make sure you have fully addressed all questions above.
- Submit your reflection via the textbox entry.
Grading Criteria
Your reflection should be a fully formed, cohesive paragraph with correct spelling and grammar. It should have no fewer than 6 sentences.
Grading criteria for the reflection is shown on the rubric below.
Rubric
150_Wk3
150_Wk3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Criteria | Ratings | Pts | ||||
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestions #1-2 (favored form of peer review) |
| 2 pts | ||||
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion #3 (dis-favored form of peer review) |
| 2 pts | ||||
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuestion #3 (Significance of peer review) |
| 2 pts | ||||
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSpelling and grammar |
| 2 pts | ||||
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdea development |
| 2 pts | ||||
Total Points: 10 | ||||||
Step-By-Step Guide BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection
INTRODUCTION TO 2-1 PEER REVIEW REFLECTION
BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection involves reflecting on the process and significance of peer review in scientific publishing. As an editor-in-chief of a new science journal, you will decide on the type of peer review to use, justify your choice, explain your least favored option, and discuss the importance of peer review in science. BIOS 150 2-1 Peer Review Reflection guide will help you structure your reflection effectively.
What form of peer review would you plan to use (select from single-blind, double-blind, or open)? Explain why that is the method you would choose and include in your answer what advantages you see it having over the other two options.
CHOOSING THE PEER REVIEW METHOD
- Clearly state which peer review method you prefer and explain why.
- Compare the chosen method with the other two options, highlighting its benefits.
Example
As the editor-in-chief of a nascent science journal, I would opt for the double-blind peer review method. The selection is predicated on its ability to foster unbiased and impartial assessments of submitted manuscripts. In a double-blind review, both the identities of the reviewers and the authors are concealed, which mitigates potential biases related to the author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, or previous reputation. The level of anonymity contrasts the single-blind review, where only the reviewer’s identity is concealed, leaving room for possible bias if the author is well-known in the field (Willmott, 2022). Additionally, the double-blind method enhances the focus on the content and quality of the manuscript rather than extraneous factors, offering a purer evaluation based solely on scientific merit.
What would be your absolute last choice of peer review for your journal? Explain why this would be the one you would favor least of all.
LEAST FAVORED PEER REVIEW METHOD
- Identify the peer review method you least prefer and explain your reasoning.
- Provide detailed reasons for your preference against the least favored method.
Example
Conversely, my last choice would be the open peer review model. Despite its transparency and the accountability it promotes, this model can inadvertently lead to a reluctance among reviewers to provide candid feedback, mainly if it is critical. The potential for future professional interactions with the author might deter a reviewer from being thoroughly objective, especially in tightly-knit academic circles. It could compromise the review process’s rigour, affecting the published research’s quality.
Describe what you see as the significance of peer review to the field of science.
SIGNIFICANCE OF PEER REVIEW IN SCIENCE
- Discuss the importance of peer review in maintaining scientific quality and integrity.
Example
The significance of peer review in science cannot be overstated. It serves as the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that the research published adheres to the highest standards of quality, credibility, and scientific integrity. Peer review acts as a gatekeeper, preventing the dissemination of flawed or unsubstantiated findings, and it also encourages researchers to meet the rigorous standards of their discipline (Lauria, 2023). By fostering a rigorous academic environment, peer review helps validate new knowledge and refine existing information, which is essential for the progressive evolution of scientific disciplines.
CLOSING
By following these guidelines, you will be able to write a comprehensive and well-structured reflection on the peer review process, clearly addressing each aspect of the Owlisdom assignment.You can also read BIOS 150 complete modules to ace the course!
REFERENCES
Lauria, M. (2023). Reviewing Peer Review: A Flawed System: With Immense Potential. Publishing Research Quarterly, 39(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09943-3
Willmott, H. (2022). Critical essay: Blinding faith – Paradoxes and pathologies of opacity in peer review. Human Relations, 75(9), 1741–1769. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211016752
