Guest Editorial/
The History and Practice of Peer Review by Francis H. Chapelle The widespread use of peer review, which is such an integral part of publishing in modern scientific journals, is actually a rather recent addition to science. When the Journal des Scavans, the first publication that we would recognize as a scientific journal, was published in 1665, it was prefaced with the following disclaimer: “we aim to report the ideas of others without guaranteeing them” (Rennie 1999). The reason for that disclaimer was that, short of personal knowledge, there was no practical way for an editor to evaluate the veracity of the contributions being offered to the journal. The concept of peer review dates to 1731 when the Royal Society of Edinburgh instituted a policy that “memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author” (Kronick 1990). But while the number and scope of scientific journals increased rapidly in the 18th and 19th centuries, peer review remained very much the exception rather than the rule. One reason for this was purely economic. Journals were typically sold by subscription and editors were under tremendous pressure to simply fill the requisite number of pages by a deadline. The other problem was that peer review involved a lot of work. In 1893, Ernest Hart, the editor of the British Medical Journal , had this to say about peer review (Rennie 1999): It is a laborious and difficult method, involving heavy daily correspondence and constant vigilance to guard against personal eccentricity or prejudice, or—that bugbear of journalism—unjustifiable censure.
Peer review did not become standard practice for many scientific journals until after World War II (WW II). For example, the British medical journal The Lancet, which began publication in 1823, did not adopt peer review until 1976. Several factors drove the adoption of peer review. One was the increasing complexity of science and the realization that external peer review greatly expands the expertise available to the editor. Another factor was the greatly increased amount of South Carolina Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 720 Gracern Rd, Columbia, SC, 29210; [email protected] © 2013, National Ground Water Association. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12139
NGWA.org
funding that became available to support science in the wake of WW II. With the explosion of scientific inquiry, submissions to scientific journals increased to the point where there wasn’t enough space to accommodate them all. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, peer review morphed into a screening procedure for identifying, by reviewer consensus, the most suitable contributions. The peer review system presently used by Groundwater is very much the product of this recent and notso-recent history. Each submitted manuscript is read by the editor-in-chief to determine if the subject matter is suitable for the scope of the journal. Those judged suitable are distributed to an associate editor and two peer reviewers, all of whom, like the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731, are selected because they are “most versed in these matters.” Reviewers are asked to comment on the overall interest of the subject matter, the appropriateness of the methods that were employed, the veracity and significance of the results, and the clarity of presentation. Reviewers are also asked to offer opinions concerning suitability for publication and to provide comments for improving the overall presentation. The peer review system developed haphazardly over a long period of time, and its shortcomings and failings are no particular secret (Horrobin 1990; Benos et al. 2007). But science requires an atmosphere of probing, questioning skepticism which, in spite of its imperfections, peer review provides. Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed in the editorial column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Ground Water Association or the U.S. Geological Survey.
References Benos, D.J., et al. 2007. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiological Education 31: 145–152. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10: 1438–1441. Kronick, D.A. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10: 1321–1322. Rennie, D. 1999. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In Peer Review in Health Sciences, eds. F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, 3–13. London: BMJ Books.
Vol. 52, No. 1–Groundwater–January-February 2014
1
The History and Practice of Peer Review by Francis H. Chapelle The widespread use of peer review, which is such an integral part of publishing in modern scientific journals, is actually a rather recent addition to science. When the Journal des Scavans, the first publication that we would recognize as a scientific journal, was published in 1665, it was prefaced with the following disclaimer: “we aim to report the ideas of others without guaranteeing them” (Rennie 1999). The reason for that disclaimer was that, short of personal knowledge, there was no practical way for an editor to evaluate the veracity of the contributions being offered to the journal. The concept of peer review dates to 1731 when the Royal Society of Edinburgh instituted a policy that “memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author” (Kronick 1990). But while the number and scope of scientific journals increased rapidly in the 18th and 19th centuries, peer review remained very much the exception rather than the rule. One reason for this was purely economic. Journals were typically sold by subscription and editors were under tremendous pressure to simply fill the requisite number of pages by a deadline. The other problem was that peer review involved a lot of work. In 1893, Ernest Hart, the editor of the British Medical Journal , had this to say about peer review (Rennie 1999): It is a laborious and difficult method, involving heavy daily correspondence and constant vigilance to guard against personal eccentricity or prejudice, or—that bugbear of journalism—unjustifiable censure.
Peer review did not become standard practice for many scientific journals until after World War II (WW II). For example, the British medical journal The Lancet, which began publication in 1823, did not adopt peer review until 1976. Several factors drove the adoption of peer review. One was the increasing complexity of science and the realization that external peer review greatly expands the expertise available to the editor. Another factor was the greatly increased amount of South Carolina Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 720 Gracern Rd, Columbia, SC, 29210; [email protected] © 2013, National Ground Water Association. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12139
NGWA.org
funding that became available to support science in the wake of WW II. With the explosion of scientific inquiry, submissions to scientific journals increased to the point where there wasn’t enough space to accommodate them all. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, peer review morphed into a screening procedure for identifying, by reviewer consensus, the most suitable contributions. The peer review system presently used by Groundwater is very much the product of this recent and notso-recent history. Each submitted manuscript is read by the editor-in-chief to determine if the subject matter is suitable for the scope of the journal. Those judged suitable are distributed to an associate editor and two peer reviewers, all of whom, like the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731, are selected because they are “most versed in these matters.” Reviewers are asked to comment on the overall interest of the subject matter, the appropriateness of the methods that were employed, the veracity and significance of the results, and the clarity of presentation. Reviewers are also asked to offer opinions concerning suitability for publication and to provide comments for improving the overall presentation. The peer review system developed haphazardly over a long period of time, and its shortcomings and failings are no particular secret (Horrobin 1990; Benos et al. 2007). But science requires an atmosphere of probing, questioning skepticism which, in spite of its imperfections, peer review provides. Editor’s Note: Opinions expressed in the editorial column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Ground Water Association or the U.S. Geological Survey.
References Benos, D.J., et al. 2007. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiological Education 31: 145–152. Horrobin, D.F. 1990. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10: 1438–1441. Kronick, D.A. 1990. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, no. 10: 1321–1322. Rennie, D. 1999. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In Peer Review in Health Sciences, eds. F. Godlee and T. Jefferson, 3–13. London: BMJ Books.
Vol. 52, No. 1–Groundwater–January-February 2014
1
