submitting a literature review for publication

• Research Guides
• Vanderbilt University Libraries

Peabody Library

Literature reviews.

• Publishing in Academic Journals
• Steps to Success: The Literature Review Process
• Literature Reviews Webinar Recording
• Literature Review Table
• Writing Like an Academic
• Managing Citations This link opens in a new window

Calls for Papers

• H-Net CFPs in the social sciences and humanities.
• CFPS from AERA Compiled by the American Educational Research Association.

Why Publish?

As a grad/professional student, you will write (or already have written!) a LOT of papers. Rather than tossing that paper aside after you've received your grade, consider turning it into a manuscript submission. There are many benefits for publishing as a grad student:

• You've already done a lot of the work! You may just need to update your research a bit, and re-format your paper for the journal you're submitting to (more on that below).
• It's a great CV booster. Whether you're looking for a job, applying to another graduate program, or just looking for an internship, having a published or accepted publication on your resume looks great.
• Publishing is also a great way to grow your professional network. While the peer review process means you most likely won't know the identify of your reviewers, journal editors are often available to discuss why your article might be a good fit for their journal. Not only are they providing valuable feedback on your writing, you now have a new professional contact!

Things To Think About

• Where Should You Publish?
• What is Impact Factor?
• Crafting Your Submission
• Copyright for Authors

Things to consider:

• Reputation - The reputation of the publisher, journal, editor and editorial board can give an indication of the quality of the journal.
• Scope and focus of the journal - It is important that your article reaches the readers who can most benefit from it and who can most benefit you. The scope and aim of the journal will give an indication of who the journal’s readers are, e.g. national or international, limited to a select area of research or with a multidisciplinary focus.
• Turnaround time - What is the length of the review process? Average length of time from submission to acceptance or rejection; from acceptance to publication? Frequency of publication?
• Included in prominent indexes - Are articles from the journal indexed in journal databases relevant to your field, or in citation databases such as Scopus or Web of Science?
• Editorial standards / Journal information - The competence of a journal’s editorial office can hugely influence the success or failure of an article. Make sure that the “Instructions to Authors” are easily accessible and that they set out clearly what is expected from authors. Does the journal come out on time or is it often two or three years behind? Is the journal carefully produced with a professional appearance, or does it have many typing errors, poor paper quality and other signs of neglect? Does the journal accept electronic submissions? This simplifies the submission process, allows swift management of manuscripts and makes it possible for authors to track the position of their manuscripts in the review process.
• Acceptance rate - The acceptance rate gives an indication of how competitive a journal is. Journals with a low acceptance rate are considered to be amongst the most prestigious in their field, the assumption being that only the very best articles are selected.
• Cost - Be aware that some journals charge either a submission fee, an acceptance fee, page fees or fees for use of colour images or other special media formats.
• Rights for authors - Check the journal website or their copyright form for information on author rights. Are you allowed to re-use the article after publication or to submit the post-print to the University’s research repository?
• Type of publication - Some journals only accept certain types of articles for publication.

More resources:

• Ulrichsweb This link opens in a new window ISSN, publisher, language, subject, abstracting & indexing coverage, full-text database coverage, tables of contents, and reviews written by librarians on periodicals of all types: academic and scholarly journals, e-journals, peer-reviewed titles, popular magazines, newspapers, newsletters, etc. more... less... User Limit: 5.

• Cabell's directory of publishing opportunities in educational psychology and administration Call Number: Peabody Reference Z286 .E3 C323
• Vanderbilt University Institutional Repository Vanderbilt's Institutional Repository. This is a great way to gain a wider audience for your work.

A  journal's  Impact Factor  ind icates the average number of times articles from the publication have been cited over a two-year period.  The higher the journal's impact factor, the more prominent the journal is in the canon of literature.

• Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports The official entity providing a journal's impact factor.
• CiteFactor A repository of open access journals, including publication information about journals, such as impact factor.
• Altmetrics Altmetrics considers how scholarship-based activities such as blog posts, tweets, downloads, shares, and views may provide important information about the significance of a research article or other research "product." Find more information on this research guide.

Author guidelines of most journals can be found on the journal website, which can be found via Google or by using Ulrich's.

Make sure to follow the guidelines closely and prepare your submission in accordance with these guidelines. Things like word count, format of the manuscript (text, illustrations, etc), and citation style are all very important.

Make sure to also check if the journal accepts submissions on a rolling basis, or if you need to inquire with the editor first.

• Journal of scholarly publishing Provides practical advice for authors, editors and publishers for a wide range of topics.
• Tips from Editors on Getting Published

• More information on Copyright Videos include: What are Copyright and Using Others' Work
• Authors' Rights Find out more about your rights as an artist, author, or creator of any sort
• Open Access Publishing Guide from Vanderbilt Library
• << Previous: Writing Like an Academic
• Next: Managing Citations >>
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 4:20 PM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/peabody/litreviews

Publishing Literature Reviews

• First Online: 11 August 2022

Cite this chapter

• Rob Dekkers 4 ,
• Lindsey Carey 5 &
• Peter Langhorne 6  

1568 Accesses

1 Citations

With the credo of academics being ‘publish or perish’, much attention is given to publishing output of studies, which includes literature reviews. The foundation for conducting literature reviews has been laid in the previous chapters from setting the topic in Chapter 4 to the analysis and synthesis in later chapters and the reporting in Chapter 13 .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Paraphrased from electronic messages to Rob Dekkers dated 6th June 2020 and 19th October 2020.

Predatory journals are used by exploitive publishers that charge publication fees to authors without reviewing articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing the other editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide. They are considered as predatory, because scholars can be tricked into publishing with them. See Beall ( 2016 ) for how these predatory journals operate and also which points to pay attention to.

Note that ranking, although often used for all kinds of purposes, is not directly a reflection of the importance or relevance of journals. An increasing number of academics and scientific institutions have signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, published in 2013, also known by its abbreviation DORA. Specifically, it states that the impact factor (or any other ranking) is not to be used as a substitute ‘measure of the quality of individual research articles, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.’

In addition to predatory journals there are predatory conferences, such as those organised by WASET (World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology); there have been numerous publications in the media about these type of organisations and how they falsely claim to be credible conferences. Therefore, always check the credentials of a conference before submitting papers to avoid becoming victim of these.

These key tests have been adapted from a presentation given by Prof. David Bennett for a select group of doctoral students at the University of the West of Scotland in 2012.

Careful reading of the comments in the review is necessary, including the advice of the editor or associate editor, because sometimes the decision for a major revision can be interpreted as a polite way of rejecting (McKercher et al. 2007 , p. 458). If there is any doubt, it is better to contact the editor before submitting a revision; note that not all editors might reply.

Beall J (2016) Essential information about predatory publishers and journals. Int Higher Educ 86:2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2016.86.9358

Article   Google Scholar  

Bodolica V, Spraggon M (2018) An end-to-end process of writing and publishing influential literature review articles: do’s and don’ts. Manag Decis 56(11):2472–2486. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2018-0253

Callahan JL (2014) Writing literature reviews: a reprise and update. Hum Resour Dev Rev 13(3):271–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314536705

Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A (2006) Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med 5(3):101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6

Holweg M (2007) The genealogy of lean production. J Oper Manag 25(2):420–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.001

Jennex ME (2015) Literature reviews and the review process: an editor-in-chief’s perspective. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 36:139–146. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03608

MacLure M (2005) Clarity bordering on stupidity: where’s the quality in systematic review? J Educ Policy 20(4):393–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500131801

McKercher B, Law R, Weber K, Song H, Hsu C (2007) Why referees reject manuscripts. J Hosp Tour Res 31(4):455–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348007302355

Rocco TS, Plakhotnik MS (2009) Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and theoretical frameworks: terms, functions, and distinctions. Hum Resour Dev Rev 8(1):120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617

Shah R, Ward PT (2007) Defining and developing measures of lean production. J Oper Manag 25(4):785–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019

Soilemezi D, Linceviciute S (2018) Synthesizing qualitative research: reflections and lessons learnt by two new reviewers. Int J Qual Methods 17(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918768014

Taylor EW, Beck J, Ainsworth E (2001) Publishing qualitative adult education research: a peer review perspective. Stud Educ Adults 33(2):163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2001.11661452

Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Toussaint JS, Berry LL (2013) The promise of lean in health care. Mayo Clin Proc 88(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.07.025

Trafford V, Leshem S, Bitzer E (2014) Conclusion chapters in doctoral theses: some international findings. High Educ Rev 46(3):52–81

Google Scholar  

Womack JP, Jones DT (1996) Lean thinking. Simon & Schuster, New York

Womack JP, Jones DT, Roos D (1991) The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production. Free Press, New York

Young TP, McClean SI (2008) A critical look at lean thinking in healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care 17(5):382–386. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.020131

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

Rob Dekkers

Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

Lindsey Carey

Peter Langhorne

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Dekkers, R., Carey, L., Langhorne, P. (2022). Publishing Literature Reviews. In: Making Literature Reviews Work: A Multidisciplinary Guide to Systematic Approaches. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90025-0_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90025-0_16

Published : 11 August 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-90024-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-90025-0

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Do you really want to publish your literature review? Advice for PhD students

Why publishing your literature review as your first paper may not be a good idea

Tatiana Andreeva - Sun 20 Jun 2021 08:20 (updated Wed 30 Aug 2023 10:03)

[Guest post by CYGNA member Tatiana Andreeva ]

Almost every PhD student I met had an idea that the literature review paper would be the first academic paper they publish. They thought of it being the first paper for two reasons - naturally literature review was the first stage of their PhD journey, but also they thought it was something relatively straightforward to do. To reinforce these ideas, in some PhD programmes I know publication of the literature review is routinely put as a milestone in the PhD progression plans.

At the same time, if you talk to academics who actually tried to publish a literature review, you would most often hear that it is a very challenging thing to do. Moreover, I recently realized that we rarely teach our graduate students how to do a literature review , let alone how to publish it . A weird mismatch, isn’t it? So, dear PhD students, I’d like to put some clarity around it for you. There are two key reasons why publishing literature review as your first paper may not be a good idea.

Not all literature reviews are made equal

First, the literature review you do as a first step of your PhD journey and publishable literature review are two different beasts: they have a different purpose, focus and audience.

The literature review you do as a first step of your PhD aims to inform you as a novice about existing literature and to help you identify an interesting research question or situate it better in the existing research landscape. You are likely to read different literatures and/or focus on different aspects, as you are trying to find your own research voice and space. As your PhD progresses and you get new ideas or unexpected empirical findings, you are likely to review the literature again (and again…)

Even if you do this literature review(s) following the best standards , it is very likely that parts of it will never be published – neither as a separate article, nor even as a literature review section of an empirical paper. Not because they are bad, but because they may end up being not so relevant for the final focus of your PhD. I know it is heartbreaking to discard pieces of work, especially our own writing, but if you think of them as steppingstones rather than final products, it becomes easier.  

In contrast, the literature review that is done for publication aims to inform others - many of whom are likely to be experts in the field - about something beyond existing literature and to propose future research agenda for them (and maybe for you as well, but it is not the main goal). Therefore, it needs a clear and single focus - on a specific research problem within a specific body of literature. And, if all goes well, it should be published – at least, that is the plan.

The table below briefly summarizes these ideas:

Easy publication of literature reviews is a myth

Another reason why I think that planning to publish a literature review as a first paper in the suite of PhD publications is not a good idea is: the notion that such papers are easy to publish is a myth! I think it is actually even more difficult to publish a literature review than an empirical paper.

In an empirical paper, you always have an element of uniqueness, which is your empirical data. Indeed, nobody has collected something like this so it is unique. Sometimes when your data is interesting, it could happen that reviewers come back to you and say: " you need to improve your theory and develop a much stronger positioning of the paper, but your data itself is very interesting, so we give you a chance for R&R ".

In my experience, this would never happen with a literature review paper – because your data is not unique, it is something that has been already written and published. Everybody, if they want, can access it. So with the literature reviews is really becomes critical that from the very start you have a very clear and strong idea of what is the problem that hasn’t been solved that your literature review solves, and what would be your theoretical contribution. This is a challenging task for everyone, not only for a PhD student, so it might be too risky to start from it your publication journey.

All that said, it does not mean that you cannot - or should not - do a literature review publication. Indeed, at some point it may stem from the literature review you did for your PhD. I hope that understanding the differences between these beasts may help you to master both – and plan your PhD publication portfolio better.

Related blogposts

• Resources on doing a literature review
• Want to publish a literature review? Think of it as an empirical paper
• How to keep up-to-date with the literature, but avoid information overload?
• Is a literature review publication a low-cost project?
• Using Publish or Perish to do a literature review
• How to conduct a longitudinal literature review?
• New: Publish or Perish now also exports abstracts
• A framework for your literature review article: where to find one?

Find the resources on my website useful?

I cover all the expenses of operating my website privately. If you enjoyed this post and want to support me in maintaining my website, consider buying a copy of one of my books (see below) or  supporting the Publish or Perish software .

Copyright © 2023 Tatiana Andreeva . All rights reserved. Page last modified on Wed 30 Aug 2023 10:03

Tatiana Andreeva's profile and contact details >>

• SpringerLink shop

Submitting a journal manuscript and peer review

Having done your research you are ready to publish your results in a journal. This is a necessary step to validate your results and share your work with the scientific community. But which journal should you publish in? How can you ensure you have the best chance of being accepted? Do you really need to bother with a cover letter? How do you respond to reviewers? You will find the answers to all these questions and more in this tutorial where we will guide you through the publication process; from choosing a journal to revising all the way through the peer-review. 

By the end of this tutorial you should:  •    know how to select a suitable journal for your manuscript  •    understand how editors asses your work  •    have an overview of the peer review process and how to respond to reviewers You will also have the opportunity to test your learning by completing a quiz at the end.

How to prepare a proposal for a review article

Matt Pavlovich

Andrea Stephens

About this video

At many journals, the process for submitting a review article is much different from the process for a research article: rather than uploading your research manuscript and clicking Submit, it might only be possible to submit a review article by invitation or prior consultation with an editor. In that case, a journal will usually ask authors to first send a proposal that introduces the review article. Common elements of proposals, which are sometimes also called pre-submission inquiries, include a concise description of the intended article, an explanation of why it’s a good fit with the journal, a list of key research articles on the topic, and perhaps a summary of the intended audience or the authors’ own expertise in the topic.

This webinar gives some insights from a reviews editor on what makes a compelling proposal, including some common mistakes to avoid, how a proposal is different from a cover letter, and the importance of customizing your proposal for your intended journal.

About the presenters

Editor of Trends in Biotechnology, Cell Press

Matt Pavlovich is the editor of Trends in Biotechnology, Cell Press’s home for reviews in applied biology. He earned his BS in chemical engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and his PhD in chemical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, where he studied the biological effects of air plasmas. He studied analytical chemistry as a postdoctoral researcher at Northeastern University, then joined Cell Press at the start of 2016. Matt is a senior manager in the Trends group and a part of the editorial teams for the Cell Press Podcast and Cell Mentor.

Editor of Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Andrea Stephens received her PhD from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada where she studied insect-plant interactions in an invasive weed. This continued her interest in invasion biology she had developed while working as a Research Associate at Plant and Food Research in New Zealand. Following her PhD, she moved to Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia for a post-doc looking at plant defences and then back to the Northern Hemisphere for a second post-doc at the University of Oxford. She joined Cell Press in November 2018.

Writing a persuasive cover letter for your manuscript

How to turn your thesis into an article

5 Diseases ailing research – and how to cure them

Using proper manuscript language

10 tips for writing a truly terrible journal article

How to prepare a review article - slides.

Trends in Biotechnology

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Follow Trends in Biotechnology on Twitter

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

What is a Literature Review? How to Write It (with Examples)

A literature review is a critical analysis and synthesis of existing research on a particular topic. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge, identifies gaps, and highlights key findings in the literature. 1 The purpose of a literature review is to situate your own research within the context of existing scholarship, demonstrating your understanding of the topic and showing how your work contributes to the ongoing conversation in the field. Learning how to write a literature review is a critical tool for successful research. Your ability to summarize and synthesize prior research pertaining to a certain topic demonstrates your grasp on the topic of study, and assists in the learning process. 

Table of Contents

• What is the purpose of literature review? 
• a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction: 
• b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes: 
• c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs: 
• d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts: 
• How to write a good literature review 
• Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question: 
• Decide on the Scope of Your Review: 
• Select Databases for Searches: 
• Conduct Searches and Keep Track: 
• Review the Literature: 
• Organize and Write Your Literature Review: 
• Frequently asked questions 

What is a literature review?

A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with the existing literature, establishes the context for their own research, and contributes to scholarly conversations on the topic. One of the purposes of a literature review is also to help researchers avoid duplicating previous work and ensure that their research is informed by and builds upon the existing body of knowledge.

What is the purpose of literature review?

A literature review serves several important purposes within academic and research contexts. Here are some key objectives and functions of a literature review: 2  

• Contextualizing the Research Problem: The literature review provides a background and context for the research problem under investigation. It helps to situate the study within the existing body of knowledge. 
• Identifying Gaps in Knowledge: By identifying gaps, contradictions, or areas requiring further research, the researcher can shape the research question and justify the significance of the study. This is crucial for ensuring that the new research contributes something novel to the field. 
• Understanding Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks: Literature reviews help researchers gain an understanding of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used in previous studies. This aids in the development of a theoretical framework for the current research. 
• Providing Methodological Insights: Another purpose of literature reviews is that it allows researchers to learn about the methodologies employed in previous studies. This can help in choosing appropriate research methods for the current study and avoiding pitfalls that others may have encountered. 
• Establishing Credibility: A well-conducted literature review demonstrates the researcher’s familiarity with existing scholarship, establishing their credibility and expertise in the field. It also helps in building a solid foundation for the new research. 
• Informing Hypotheses or Research Questions: The literature review guides the formulation of hypotheses or research questions by highlighting relevant findings and areas of uncertainty in existing literature. 

Literature review example

Let’s delve deeper with a literature review example: Let’s say your literature review is about the impact of climate change on biodiversity. You might format your literature review into sections such as the effects of climate change on habitat loss and species extinction, phenological changes, and marine biodiversity. Each section would then summarize and analyze relevant studies in those areas, highlighting key findings and identifying gaps in the research. The review would conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on specific aspects of the relationship between climate change and biodiversity. The following literature review template provides a glimpse into the recommended literature review structure and content, demonstrating how research findings are organized around specific themes within a broader topic. 

Literature Review on Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity:

Climate change is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences, including significant impacts on biodiversity. This literature review synthesizes key findings from various studies: 

a. Habitat Loss and Species Extinction:

Climate change-induced alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns contribute to habitat loss, affecting numerous species (Thomas et al., 2004). The review discusses how these changes increase the risk of extinction, particularly for species with specific habitat requirements. 

b. Range Shifts and Phenological Changes:

Observations of range shifts and changes in the timing of biological events (phenology) are documented in response to changing climatic conditions (Parmesan & Yohe, 2003). These shifts affect ecosystems and may lead to mismatches between species and their resources. 

c. Ocean Acidification and Coral Reefs:

The review explores the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, emphasizing ocean acidification’s threat to coral reefs (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Changes in pH levels negatively affect coral calcification, disrupting the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. 

d. Adaptive Strategies and Conservation Efforts:

Recognizing the urgency of the situation, the literature review discusses various adaptive strategies adopted by species and conservation efforts aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on biodiversity (Hannah et al., 2007). It emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches for effective conservation planning. 

How to write a good literature review

Writing a literature review involves summarizing and synthesizing existing research on a particular topic. A good literature review format should include the following elements. 

Introduction: The introduction sets the stage for your literature review, providing context and introducing the main focus of your review. 

• Opening Statement: Begin with a general statement about the broader topic and its significance in the field. 
• Scope and Purpose: Clearly define the scope of your literature review. Explain the specific research question or objective you aim to address. 
• Organizational Framework: Briefly outline the structure of your literature review, indicating how you will categorize and discuss the existing research. 
• Significance of the Study: Highlight why your literature review is important and how it contributes to the understanding of the chosen topic. 
• Thesis Statement: Conclude the introduction with a concise thesis statement that outlines the main argument or perspective you will develop in the body of the literature review. 

Body: The body of the literature review is where you provide a comprehensive analysis of existing literature, grouping studies based on themes, methodologies, or other relevant criteria. 

• Organize by Theme or Concept: Group studies that share common themes, concepts, or methodologies. Discuss each theme or concept in detail, summarizing key findings and identifying gaps or areas of disagreement. 
• Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each study. Discuss the methodologies used, the quality of evidence, and the overall contribution of each work to the understanding of the topic. 
• Synthesis of Findings: Synthesize the information from different studies to highlight trends, patterns, or areas of consensus in the literature. 
• Identification of Gaps: Discuss any gaps or limitations in the existing research and explain how your review contributes to filling these gaps. 
• Transition between Sections: Provide smooth transitions between different themes or concepts to maintain the flow of your literature review. 

Conclusion: The conclusion of your literature review should summarize the main findings, highlight the contributions of the review, and suggest avenues for future research. 

• Summary of Key Findings: Recap the main findings from the literature and restate how they contribute to your research question or objective. 
• Contributions to the Field: Discuss the overall contribution of your literature review to the existing knowledge in the field. 
• Implications and Applications: Explore the practical implications of the findings and suggest how they might impact future research or practice. 
• Recommendations for Future Research: Identify areas that require further investigation and propose potential directions for future research in the field. 
• Final Thoughts: Conclude with a final reflection on the importance of your literature review and its relevance to the broader academic community. 

Conducting a literature review

Conducting a literature review is an essential step in research that involves reviewing and analyzing existing literature on a specific topic. It’s important to know how to do a literature review effectively, so here are the steps to follow: 1  

Choose a Topic and Define the Research Question:

• Select a topic that is relevant to your field of study. 
• Clearly define your research question or objective. Determine what specific aspect of the topic do you want to explore? 

Decide on the Scope of Your Review:

• Determine the timeframe for your literature review. Are you focusing on recent developments, or do you want a historical overview? 
• Consider the geographical scope. Is your review global, or are you focusing on a specific region? 
• Define the inclusion and exclusion criteria. What types of sources will you include? Are there specific types of studies or publications you will exclude? 

Select Databases for Searches:

• Identify relevant databases for your field. Examples include PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. 
• Consider searching in library catalogs, institutional repositories, and specialized databases related to your topic. 

Conduct Searches and Keep Track:

• Develop a systematic search strategy using keywords, Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT), and other search techniques. 
• Record and document your search strategy for transparency and replicability. 
• Keep track of the articles, including publication details, abstracts, and links. Use citation management tools like EndNote, Zotero, or Mendeley to organize your references. 

Review the Literature:

• Evaluate the relevance and quality of each source. Consider the methodology, sample size, and results of studies. 
• Organize the literature by themes or key concepts. Identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing research. 
• Summarize key findings and arguments from each source. Compare and contrast different perspectives. 
• Identify areas where there is a consensus in the literature and where there are conflicting opinions. 
• Provide critical analysis and synthesis of the literature. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing research? 

Organize and Write Your Literature Review:

• Literature review outline should be based on themes, chronological order, or methodological approaches. 
• Write a clear and coherent narrative that synthesizes the information gathered. 
• Use proper citations for each source and ensure consistency in your citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). 
• Conclude your literature review by summarizing key findings, identifying gaps, and suggesting areas for future research. 

The literature review sample and detailed advice on writing and conducting a review will help you produce a well-structured report. But remember that a literature review is an ongoing process, and it may be necessary to revisit and update it as your research progresses. 

Frequently asked questions

A literature review is a critical and comprehensive analysis of existing literature (published and unpublished works) on a specific topic or research question and provides a synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a particular field. A well-conducted literature review is crucial for researchers to build upon existing knowledge, avoid duplication of efforts, and contribute to the advancement of their field. It also helps researchers situate their work within a broader context and facilitates the development of a sound theoretical and conceptual framework for their studies.

Literature review is a crucial component of research writing, providing a solid background for a research paper’s investigation. The aim is to keep professionals up to date by providing an understanding of ongoing developments within a specific field, including research methods, and experimental techniques used in that field, and present that knowledge in the form of a written report. Also, the depth and breadth of the literature review emphasizes the credibility of the scholar in his or her field.  

Before writing a literature review, it’s essential to undertake several preparatory steps to ensure that your review is well-researched, organized, and focused. This includes choosing a topic of general interest to you and doing exploratory research on that topic, writing an annotated bibliography, and noting major points, especially those that relate to the position you have taken on the topic. 

Literature reviews and academic research papers are essential components of scholarly work but serve different purposes within the academic realm. 3 A literature review aims to provide a foundation for understanding the current state of research on a particular topic, identify gaps or controversies, and lay the groundwork for future research. Therefore, it draws heavily from existing academic sources, including books, journal articles, and other scholarly publications. In contrast, an academic research paper aims to present new knowledge, contribute to the academic discourse, and advance the understanding of a specific research question. Therefore, it involves a mix of existing literature (in the introduction and literature review sections) and original data or findings obtained through research methods. 

Literature reviews are essential components of academic and research papers, and various strategies can be employed to conduct them effectively. If you want to know how to write a literature review for a research paper, here are four common approaches that are often used by researchers.  Chronological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the chronological order of publication. It helps to trace the development of a topic over time, showing how ideas, theories, and research have evolved.  Thematic Review: Thematic reviews focus on identifying and analyzing themes or topics that cut across different studies. Instead of organizing the literature chronologically, it is grouped by key themes or concepts, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of various aspects of the topic.  Methodological Review: This strategy involves organizing the literature based on the research methods employed in different studies. It helps to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies and allows the reader to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research findings.  Theoretical Review: A theoretical review examines the literature based on the theoretical frameworks used in different studies. This approach helps to identify the key theories that have been applied to the topic and assess their contributions to the understanding of the subject.  It’s important to note that these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and a literature review may combine elements of more than one approach. The choice of strategy depends on the research question, the nature of the literature available, and the goals of the review. Additionally, other strategies, such as integrative reviews or systematic reviews, may be employed depending on the specific requirements of the research.

The literature review format can vary depending on the specific publication guidelines. However, there are some common elements and structures that are often followed. Here is a general guideline for the format of a literature review:  Introduction:   Provide an overview of the topic.  Define the scope and purpose of the literature review.  State the research question or objective.  Body:   Organize the literature by themes, concepts, or chronology.  Critically analyze and evaluate each source.  Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.  Highlight any methodological limitations or biases.  Identify patterns, connections, or contradictions in the existing research.  Conclusion:   Summarize the key points discussed in the literature review.  Highlight the research gap.  Address the research question or objective stated in the introduction.  Highlight the contributions of the review and suggest directions for future research.

Both annotated bibliographies and literature reviews involve the examination of scholarly sources. While annotated bibliographies focus on individual sources with brief annotations, literature reviews provide a more in-depth, integrated, and comprehensive analysis of existing literature on a specific topic. The key differences are as follows: 

References 

• Denney, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). How to write a literature review.  Journal of criminal justice education ,  24 (2), 218-234. 
• Pan, M. L. (2016).  Preparing literature reviews: Qualitative and quantitative approaches . Taylor & Francis. 
• Cantero, C. (2019). How to write a literature review.  San José State University Writing Center . 

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.  

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Related Reads:

• Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics 
• How to Write a Scientific Paper in 10 Steps 
• Life Sciences Papers: 9 Tips for Authors Writing in Biological Sciences
• What is an Argumentative Essay? How to Write It (With Examples)

6 Tips for Post-Doc Researchers to Take Their Career to the Next Level

Self-plagiarism in research: what it is and how to avoid it, you may also like, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college..., ai + human expertise – a paradigm shift..., how to use paperpal to generate emails &..., ai in education: it’s time to change the..., is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without....

Submission guidelines

Our 3-step submission process, before you submit.

Now you’ve identified a journal to submit to, there are a few things you should be familiar with before you submit.

• Make sure you are submitting to the most suitable journal - Aims and scope
• Understand the costs and funding options - Fees and funding
• Make sure your manuscript is accurate and readable - Language editing services
• Understand the copyright agreement - Copyright

Ready to submit

To give your manuscript the best chance of publication, follow these policies and formatting guidelines.

• Check the quality of your writing - Free Language check
• General formatting rules for all article types - Preparing your manuscript
• Make sure your submission is complete - Prepare supporting information
• Copyright and license agreement - Conditions of publication
• Read and agree to our Editorial Policies - Editorial policies

Submit and promote

After acceptance, we provide support so your article gains maximum impact in the scientific community and beyond.

Please note that manuscript can only be submitted by an author of the manuscript and may not be submitted by a third party. 

• Who decides whether my work will be accepted? - Peer-review policy
• Want to submit to a different journal? - Manuscript transfers
• Spreading the word - Promoting your publication

Submit manuscript

• Editorial Board
• Manuscript editing services
• Instructions for Editors
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal
• Follow us on Twitter

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 3.7 - 2-year Impact Factor 3.8 - 5-year Impact Factor 1.561 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 1.269 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 88 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 296 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  3,531,065 downloads 3,533 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Systematic Review

• Library Help
• What is a Systematic Review (SR)?
• Steps of a Systematic Review
• Framing a Research Question
• Developing a Search Strategy
• Searching the Literature
• Managing the Process
• Meta-analysis

Publishing your Systematic Review

Journal Listings

Want to decide the best order for listing co-authors and acknowledging their contributions? See some guidelines below:

• Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007).  Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications .  PLoS biology ,  5 (1), e18. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.0050018  
• Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals , which were developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

CRediT  is a high-level taxonomy, including 14 roles, that can be used to represent the roles typically played by contributors to research outputs. The roles describe each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output.

• Conceptualization
• Data curation
• Formal Analysis
• Funding acquisition
• Investigation
• Methodology
• Project administration
• Supervision
• Visualization
• Writing – original draft
• Writing – review & editing

Journal Checker Tool for Plan S

Plan S - Making full & immediate Open Access a reality

Why Plan S?

Check if the journal is compliant with Plan S

Using a journal matching technology based on your manuscript title and abstract, the following tools can help you find journals that could be best suited for publishing your systematic review article. You will need also to consult the journal’s aims and scope for further guidance. Simply insert your title and abstract and select the appropriate field-of-research for the best results.

Journal Finder Tools

Looking for an open-access journal to submit your manuscript? Search SciFree for the journals included in open-access agreements where the author processing fees are waived for UMD faculty and students.

You can also try to find other journals by using the title/abstract of your manuscript.

• Elsevier Journal Finder
• SAGE Journal Recommender
• Springer Journal Suggester
• Taylor & Francis Journal Suggester
• Wiley Journal Finder - free Enter your title and abstract below to search for Wiley journals that match your manuscript.
• Wiley Journal Recommendation - paid Paid service. Check the web site for blog posts on tips of choosing the right journal for your research.

Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies

Open access publishing fund, author rights.

"The SPARC Author Addendum is a legal instrument that modifies the publisher’s agreement and allows you to keep key rights to your articles . The Author Addendum is a free resource developed by SPARC in partnership with Creative Commons and Science Commons , established non-profit organizations that offer a range of copyright options for many different creative endeavors."

For more information, visit SPARC's website .

Equitable Citation Practice

Introduction

Citation Practice has broad implications for who gets a voice in academia. Much of the tenure practice is based on "impact" produced by citations. Academia has been excruciatingly slow at incorporating different metrics of impact. So who is being cited results in who gets promoted, who conduct research, and the voices that speak in our classrooms.

“Citation behavior is the product of institutional structures and individual habits. Imbalances in citation behavior, therefore, are produced by both institutional biases and individual biases. By bias, we mean discriminatory (or, conversely, preferential) values, practices, or mechanisms, typically resulting in material, psychological, or physical harms.”

Source: Dworkin, J., Zurn, P., & Bassett, D. S. (2020). (In) citing action to realize an equitable future . Neuron, 106 (6), 890-894.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.05.011

• Power Point slides
• Research Equity LibGuide
• Resources for Inclusive and Equitable Research 
• Include a diversity statement for citations in your manuscript

Resources to Help with Critical Citation Practice

• BIPOC Scientists Citation (Rockefeller University) - Resources for identifying BIPOC scientists
• How to Cite Like a Badass Feminist Tech Scholar of Color - An article and printable zine that guides you in excellent critical citation practice.
• Cite Black Authors - A database of self-identified Black scholars to cite in a wide variety of fields and subjects.
• Cite Black Women Collective - A group of women who gather resources and push researchers to change their citation practice.
• Women in Neuroscience
• Anne's List
• BiasWatchNeuro
• Gender Citation Balance Index tool
• Gender Balance Assessment Tool (GBAT)
• Humanities Research - check these resources for inclusive and equitable research .

UMD SciFree

• << Previous: Meta-analysis
• Last Updated: Apr 19, 2024 12:47 PM
• URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/SR

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.3(4); 2016 Oct

Peer review and the publication process

Parveen azam ali.

1 The School of Nursing and Midwifery, The University of Sheffield, Barber House Annexe, 3a Clarkehouse Road, Sheffield, S10 2LA, UK

Roger Watson

2 Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK

To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals.

Discussion paper.

This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing.

There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post‐publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

Introduction

Publication in academic journals plays an important role in the development and progress of any profession, including nursing (Dipboye 2006 ). On the one hand, it provides professionals such as nurses with an opportunity to share their examples of best practice and research results with colleagues in the discipline. On the other hand, academic and scientific publications serve as a source of knowledge and evidence for students, novice practitioners and emerging researchers (Henly & Dougherty 2009 ) and contribute to their professional development. To serve these purposes effectively, appropriate scrutiny of manuscripts submitted to academic journals, to determine their worth, quality, methodological rigour, utility and publishability before appearing in the electronic and print media, is warranted. Such quality assurance mechanisms are essential to ensure publication of reliable and high quality research and scholarly evidence (Shattell et al . 2010 ).

The publication process begins with a manuscript submission to a journal by an author. As shown in Figure  1 – which outlines the editorial processes at Wiley – a manuscript goes through several stages before actual publication (Jefferson et al . 2007 ). The process outlined in Figure  1 may be more elaborate than for some journals and the various tasks may be distributed differently across the editorial team, but this figure includes all of the possible steps that can take place in the publication process. The first stage of the process is an editorial review that aims to assess the quality and merits of a manuscript. The editor (often the editor‐in‐chief) of the journal concerned reviews the manuscript to determine its relevance to the journal and suitability to undergo peer review. Further checks take place at the editorial desk by an editorial assistant, including checks for similarity to other sources using a similarity detection package such as iThenticate ® . If the manuscript is too similar to other sources, it may be rejected or it may be unsubmitted and returned to the author for amendment. Additional checks for readability and the extent to which the manuscript conforms to the standards of the journal, for example, word‐length and use of international reporting standards take place. In Figure  1 , this is done by a managing editor and, again, the manuscript may be rejected or returned to the author for amendment. Once satisfied, the managing editor assigns an editor, identifies, and assigns 2‐3 reviewers with appropriate knowledge, skills, methodological expertise and experience to assess the manuscript and feedback on its quality, rigour and publishability. Peer reviewers' feedback helps the editor to decide if the manuscript is rejected, accepted or needs revision before it can be accepted for publication. Whatever the case, the decision is communicated to the author. When a revision is required, the reviewers suggest changes or ask for more details from the authors before accepting the manuscript for publication. Once the manuscript is accepted, it moves to the third stage, which is called production and ensures the production of a readable and comprehensible article free of spelling mistakes, and presented in the uniform style of a particular journal (Jefferson et al . 2007 ). The author is also expected to check and approve the final proof before the final stage which is an administrative process, to ensure the allocation of appropriate tracking number, called Digital Object Identifier (DOI), to the article and regular production of a journal (Jefferson et al . 2007 ). The peer review process is important to understand, not only for potential authors, but also for those involved in the process, as it is often an individual/solitary exercise.

The editorial process, including peer review. EiC, editor‐in‐chief; EA , editorial assistant ( SP i is a company providing editorial assistants); ME , managing editor.

Until recently, little guidance was available to peer reviewers, though, publishers and journals have started developing resources for novice and potential peer reviewers (Pierson 2011 ). The availability of relatively limited information about the peer review process deters authors' and reviewers' ability and willingness to be involved in the process. An awareness of the peer review process may help authors understand the process, and expectations better and therefore, may alleviate their anxiety and facilitate preparation of appropriate quality manuscripts. Experienced authors will be well aware that not every manuscript is accepted and that some journals have very low publication rates. For example, the Journal of Advanced Nursing (one of the present authors is an editor) receives approximately 1,400 manuscripts annually and publishes fewer than 20% of them. The Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) receives over 5000 manuscripts annually and publishes fewer than 5% of them (Personal communication from Howard Bauchner, Editor in‐Chief JAMA ). Such knowledge may also help authors and readers to become involved in the peer review process. This article aims to provide an overview of the peer review process for authors, novice peer reviewers and those who may have an interest in becoming a peer reviewer. Various types of peer review, selection of peer reviewers, the role of peer review, and issues associated with peer review are explored.

Background to peer review

Peer review lies at the core of science and academic life (Kearney & Freda 2005 , Henly & Dougherty 2009 ). It is an established component of the publication process, professional practice and the academic reward system (Lee et al . 2013 ). The process involves checking or evaluating the scholarly work by a group of experts in the same discipline. The process is used by academic institutions, funding bodies and publishers to identify strengths, weaknesses and the potential to be published of a proposed piece of work (Pierson 2011 ). It is an essential element of the publication process that purports to ensure quality and excellence in papers published in scientific, educational and professional journals (Henly & Dougherty 2009 ). The history of editorial review extends over 200 years (Kronick 1990 , Rennie 2003 ); however, the practice of peer review in its current form only developed in the 19th century (Fyfe 2015 ) and since 1967 peer review has become the norm. It is now considered a gold standard process that not only helps journals to judge manuscripts, but also acts as a criterion to judge the journals (Bordage & Caelleigh 2001 ). Before the introduction of peer review, the majority of editors of academic and scientific journals were generalists. After World War II, medical and technological advancement and changes made it impossible for generalist editors to judge papers requiring specialist knowledge. Therefore, it was considered necessary to seek the assistance of expert content specialists to assist in the process of reviewing (Christenbery 2011 ). Since then peer review has become an integral part of the publication process.

Utility of peer review

There are many beneficiaries of the peer review process and these include authors, editors and publishers, peer reviewers, disciplines and society. The process provides authors with an opportunity to improve the quality and clarity of their manuscript. Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is considered prestigious. Comments provided by the reviewers guide and help the journal's editor and editorial staff to identify acceptable or substandard manuscripts (Christenbery 2011 ). Editors rely on the peer review system to inform the choices they make among the many manuscripts competing for the few places available for publication (Broome et al . 2010 , Lipworth et al . 2011 ).

The peer review process is also useful for peer reviewers themselves, as it helps them develop knowledge and expertise in their specific field. Acting as a peer reviewer may also be recognized as an example of ‘contribution to the profession’ in individual performance reviews (Pierson 2011 ). ‘The peer review process can also affect society at large when a social policy implication is suggested or inferred from the published manuscript’ (Hojat et al . 2003 , p. 76). In addition, publication of well written, methodologically sound and well informed research and scholarly papers help professions such as nursing to develop.

Types of peer review

There are, essentially, two types of peer review: closed and open. The former is more common, but the latter is becoming more popular and authors and reviewers encounter both types of reviews. Closed review has two variants – as will be explained – and we are now seeing post‐publication review (PPPR) in some journals. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages as specified in Table  1 .

Characteristics of various peer review methods

Closed peer review

Closed peer review is a system where either the identities of at least one of the parties in the review process – usually the reviewers – are not disclosed. Closed review works in two ways: single blind and double blind. In single blind review , the author is not aware of the reviewers' identities. However, the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, affiliations and credentials. It is the most common approach used in the majority of academic and scientific journals, especially biomedical journals (Kearney & Freda 2005 ). The method is criticized for several flaws such as the possibility of reviewer bias as the reviewer is not blinded to the details of the authors. The method could be considered unfair on the grounds that the manuscript is the intellectual property of the author (Dividoff & DeAngelis 2001 ) and, therefore, should be reviewed openly and not secretly (Smith 1999 ). Some believe that the single blind review gives the reviewers an opportunity to be harsh to the authors as they feel assured that the authors will not be able to identify them. In addition, reviewers working in the same field may delay the feedback to delay publication, if they themselves are thinking of publishing on the same topic. Despite this criticism, single blind peer review remains a commonly used method.

Double blind review is also commonly used by many professional biomedical journals (Kearney & Freda 2005 , Baggs et al . 2008 ). Nearly all (95%) nursing journals follow this approach (Kearney & Freda 2005 ). In this approach, the authors and reviewers are not aware of each other's identities and institutional affiliations. Proponents of double‐blind review maintain that this approach eliminates chances of bias in the manuscript review process; whereas, opponents believe that such blinding does not improve the quality of the review (van Rooyen et al . 1998 , Shea et al . 2001 ). Evidence suggest that, despite double blinding, reviewers may still be able recognize authors through other markers such as writing style, subject matter and self‐citation. Like the single blind review, there is a chance that the reviewers may be unnecessarily critical while giving feedback to the authors.

Open peer review

In contrast to the closed review, open peer review is a system where authors and reviewer are known to each other throughout the process. Many major journals such as the British Medical Journal (BMJ) encourage this approach. In an open review, authors and reviewers' names may be published alongside each other with an option to publish reviewers' reports alongside. Proponents believe that this is a better approach as nothing is done in secret and the authors' intellectual property rights are respected (Dividoff & DeAngelis 2001 ). The approach may also act as a regulatory mechanism for the reviewers whom ‘will produce better work and avoid offhand, careless or rude comments when their identity is known’ (Ware 2008 , p. 6). Reviewers are recognized for their contribution as their names are published in the journal. Opponents, however, maintain that open review may lead to less honest, less critical and less rigorous review by the reviewers who may fear revenge. Opponents believe that knowing the authors' identity, reputation and institutional affiliation may affect the review process and contribute to a biased decision. We also consider it possible that some reviewers may be overly critical with the intention of appearing to be very rigorous to their peers. Open reviewing recently received some criticism following an incident involving the open access online journal PloS One (Bernstein 2015 ). The case involved some sexist remarks from a reviewer towards an author advising her to work with male colleagues who were, ostensibly, more successful. This was made possible by dint of the fact that the reviewer could identify the author and her gender due to the open review system. The reviewer and the editor who allowed the comments to be passed on to the author are no longer associated with the journal.

Other forms of peer review

Hunter ( 2012 , p. 1) states ‘Peer review is broken’ and she continues to explain that, from the author's perspective: ‘Peer review is slow; it delays publication. It's almost always secret; authors do not know who is reviewing their work – perhaps an ally but, equally, perhaps a competitor'. However, more recently, advances in the electronic publishing technology (Ware 2008 ) have enabled the development of another form of review called ‘post‐publication peer review’ (PPPR), which means that the review is performed once the article is already published. Initially, PPPR was only generally acceptable as a supplement to the peer review process and not as a sole process (Ware 2008 ) but is becoming more mainstream and, for example, the blog The Future of Scientific Publishing ( https://futureofscipub.wordpress.com/open-post-publication-peer-review/ ; accessed 8 December 2015) advocates more post‐publication reviewing as a form of scrutiny of papers which are in the public domain and, moreover, advocates and open system of review. By some this has been seen as a response to the: ‘urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review’ (Teixeira da Silva & Dobránski 2015 , p.1). PPPR can take two forms ‘primary PPPR’ or ‘secondary PPPR’. In primary PPR, an unreviewed article is published after initial editorial checks. It can then be reviewed by formally invited reviewers, as practiced by F1000Research and Copernicus journals (Amsen 2014 ) who describe their process as ‘publish then filter’ (Hunter 2012 ). In secondary PPPR, the aricle is published after initial editorial checks but it is available for review by voluntary reviewers. In both cases, the article is altered by the authors on the basis of the PPPR comments and, essentially, evolves towards a published peer reviewed article. Thus, PPPR – of whatever form – complements traditional peer review and ‘allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing’ (Teixeira da Silva & Dobránski 2015 , p.1) and now has some prominent supporters, including Richard Smith ( 2015 ), the former Editor of the BMJ .

In terms of accelerating the peer review process, regardless of the outcome, Kriegeskorte ( 2012 ) indicates that the PPPR system essentially merges the ‘review and reception’, or publication, of articles. He envisages the literature being accessed by web‐portals which take readers directly to articles based on subject material rather than through journals or journal webpages, admittedly something that is already evident, and thus facilitating the process of review and the reputation of individual articles rather than journals. Kriegeskorte ( 2012 ) sees this as an alternative to potentially good articles being rejected on submission and also the rapid, and possibly undeserved, reputation that some articles gain. In Kriegeskorte's words (p. 7) ‘important papers will accumulate a solid set of evaluations and bubble up in the process – some of them rapidly, others after years’. Naturally, some ‘quality control’ of reviewers is exercised as some publishers require peer reviewers to meet certain criteria. For instance, Science Open requires a reviewer to have at least five articles published in their ORCiD profile. However, at Winnower, any registered user can review a published article and leave their comment (Amsen 2014 ). Alternatively, commenting on published articles via blogs or other third party sites is always possible.

An informal system of PPPR has always existed and this has been facilitated by the recent major advances in electronic publishing and by the near universality of journals being published online. The rise of online social media and networking is now facilitating, in turn, a steady stream of comment on publications. Authors increasingly ‘get their retaliation in first’ by eking out results and manuscripts through social media platforms such as blogs and microblogs – most specifically, Twitter – whereby an exchange of views can take place in advance, even, of a refereed article. In addition, some journals publish open access; some exclusively and some offering the facility to publish articles open access for a fee called an APC (article processing charge). Even if the content is not freely available, academics have easy access to most scientific publications through their university libraries via gateways such as ATHENS. This means that, with the use of online early publication, by many publishers, of articles before they are serialized and with the immediate posting of articles by some online open access publishers such as BioMed Central, that academics have access to a steady stream of articles in their field. Where scientific literature may not be as freely available, for example, in some developing countries and to those working outside academic publishers do take steps to increase ease of access to their work through specific deals and, of course, it is always open to any academic to request an offprint (hard copy or electronic) directly from authors.

Finally, and very recently, is the advent of the website PubPeer which explicitly exists to provide anonymous post‐publication review of published, refereed, articles. As explained by Watson ( 2016 ), PubPeer is in its infancy, but growing and has received some negative press as in the description of promoting ‘vigilante science’.

Selection of peer reviewers

Reviewers are usually people who have published on the same topic (Brazeau et al . 2008 ) and selection of the reviewer is an important task that is normally carried out by the editor of the journal. Editors identify and invite suitable, experienced and interested people in the subject matter or relevant field by using the key words authors (peer review) have used in the past. Many journals use a bank of established and regular reviewers, but some use the keywords to identify individuals via search engines and databases, for example, ResearcherID. Some journals ask the authors to name reviewers and one study (Kowalczuk et al . 2015 ) suggest that, while this has little effect on the quality of reviews, it does lead to higher recommendations to accept manuscripts. However, the process of authors suggesting reviewers has led to some scandals related to fabricated peer reviews (Barbash 2015 , Moylan 2015 ) and some journals are no longer using this process. In some journals, authors can also indicate individuals they would not wish to review their manuscripts. The editors may also invite authors to become subsequent reviewers, sometimes by asking them to provide their Curriculum vitae (Evans et al . 1993 ) or on the basis of particular qualifications (e.g. a PhD) and a publication track record in peer reviewed journals. The method of selecting the reviewer does not, necessarily, affect the quality of the review as individuals are different and, therefore, their interpretation, views and methods of review will, in any case, vary. However, contrary to what might be expected, it has been demonstrated that emerging academics are usually better reviewers as they provide comprehensive and thorough feedback (Evans et al . 1993 , van Rooyen et al . 1998 ). Evidence also identified no improvement in the quality of review with academic seniority or gender (Gilbert et al . 1994 , Fox et al . 2016 ).

Role of peer reviewers

Reviewers contribute to the development of the knowledge base of any profession, such as nursing, by giving their valuable time to review manuscripts (Dipboye 2006 , Pierson 2011 ). Reviewers are volunteers and rarely receive any monetary compensation for their role (Relman & Angell 1989 ). The role of a reviewer is very important, yet a challenging and complex professional activity. To be a good reviewer requires theoretical, methodological and practical knowledge and an ability to apply that knowledge when evaluating a manuscript and writing constructive feedback to help the author improve the quality of their manuscript (Lovejoy et al . 2011 ). In addition, reviewers' feedback helps the editor to make a decision about the manuscript (Broome et al . 2010 ). Acting as a peer reviewer is useful for an individual academic, as it helps them to develop their subject knowledge, analytical abilities and skills required to provide constructive feedback. The activity is usually recorded on their curriculum vitae and thus can be recognized in performance appraisal and progression. There are various reasons why reviewers choose to review manuscripts. These include a desire to play their part as a member of the academic community, improve their reputation and career progression (Ware 2008 ) and increase their knowledge and understanding of their subject. Other common factors that may encourage academics to act as peer reviewer include the inducement of getting a free or reduced subscription to the journal, acknowledgement in journals and payment in kind (Ware 2008 ). The reviewers have to adhere to certain principles of the review as advocated by the Committee on Publication Ethics ( 2013 ) and academic journals. These are summarized in Table  2 .

Principles of Peer Review recommended by Committee on Publication Ethics ( 2013 )

Issues with peer review

As already indicated, the peer review process is criticized by many academics who believe ‘…it is ineffective, largely a lottery, anti‐innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant’ (Smith 2015 ). Some believe that various flaws and problems in the peer review process may affect the quality of reviews and, thereby, the quality of publications. These flaws include: slowness of the publication processes; negative impact on authors; poor preparation and training of reviewers; variable review requirements; ineffectiveness of peer review; and biases in peer review. We believe, these issues are relevant to all forms of peer review, although, some may be more relevant to some forms of peer review than others.

Peer review slows the publication process

There is a perception that peer review may slow the process of publication. ‘…the original purpose of peer review was to ration access to resources for scholarly exposure. Nowadays, however, exposure is not a scarce resource, since publications can be made available electronically, essentially free of cost. The question, therefore, is one of quality control and we do not know how much refereeing the scholarly market actually wants’ (The British Academy 2007 , p. 11). However, peer review is a quality control mechanism which, despite contributing to slowness of procedures, enhances the quality of the publication. In addition, most journals – these days – not only specify a date when a review is due, but also send reminders (a week before the review is due; on the due date) to reviewers to remind them to complete and submit their review timely. This approach is very useful as it helps reviewers to complete their review in time.

Negative impact on authors

Undergoing peer review can be a negative experience for some authors due to insensitive and irresponsible behaviour of some reviewers who may not read the manuscript, provide irrelevant comments or feedback, and use the opportunity to promote their work or make negative and malicious comments (Smith 2015 ). However, development and communication of appropriate practice guidelines and principles of peer review may help overcome such issues. In addition, the journal editors can play a very important role and may be able to intervene in such situation by discussing the issues with the reviewer. This issue may have more impact in the context of post‐publication peer review. Publicly available harsh, unnecessary, negative and insensitive comments can be detrimental to author's rapport and may have an impact on their confidence and ability to write in future.

Poor reviewer preparation

Formal training and preparation may help reviewers develop appropriate review skills, but is often not widely available. The process itself is not easy to learn (Provenzale & Stanley 2006 ) and educational programmes do not prepare postgraduate students for the role of peer reviewer (Eastwood 2000 ). This, in turn, affects the confidence and ability of reviewers who may only learn the art of reviewing through trial and error. New reviewers usually do not have any training or awareness about how to review a paper. A reviewer may not have any mentorship or any experience of reviewing someone else's work. This issue can be overcome by ensuring that postgraduate students, doctoral and post‐doctoral academics are provided with appropriate training and guidance to develop their review and feedback skills (The British Academy 2007 , House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2011 ). One strategy may be that postgraduate students and emerging academics should be invited to review manuscripts as a third reviewer. Appropriate mentorship and guidance can be provided by introducing a buddy system where novice reviewers are ‘buddied’ with experienced reviewers. In either of the cases above, this needs to be done with the permission of the journal and declared and some journals ask for this as a specific declaration when reviews are submitted. This may help novice reviewers to develop reviewing skills and knowledge. Presently, very few journals give reviewers access to other reviewers' comments. Nevertheless, giving reviewers access to other reviewers comments about the same manuscript can also be a useful way of helping reviewers improve their knowledge and skills (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2011 ). As manuscripts are now reviewed electronically, providing access to other reviewers' comments and feedback is fairly straightforward and hassle‐free.

Variable review requirements

There is a wide variation in the review requirements and expectations among different journals. Recently, various publishers and journals have started to develop guidelines to help reviewers understand the expectations. Some journals are very prescriptive and expect strict compliance by the reviewers, while others may be less specific about their expectations. Although it is important to provide some guidance about review and communicate expectation to ensure consistency in review, too much prescription may limit the reviewer's ability to critically assess and feedback on strengths and areas of improvement of a manuscript. Again providing appropriate guidance, mentorship opportunities and sharing of fellow reviewer's reports can help reviewers identify their own style of review and develop confidence and ability to provide constructive feedback.

Ineffectiveness of peer review

Research examining effectiveness of peer review is still limited (Patel 2014 ). The lack of research supporting or negating the effectiveness of peer review contributes to ambiguity about the effectiveness of peer review and fuels the criticism against peer review (Jefferson et al . 2002 , Ware 2008 , Patel 2014 ). Some researchers consider peer review as an unreliable method of quality assurance and error detection (Godlee et al . 1998 , Patel 2014 ). They believe that reviewing by two reviewers is insufficient to identify issues with the manuscript. The authors maintain that to make the peer review process reliable and comparable, an editor is required to have a minimum of six reviewers, whereas generally, it is often difficult to identify two or three reviewers to review a paper (Rothwell & Martyn 2000 , Ware 2008 ). It should also be recognized that peer review is not a scientific process; it is a process based on people and the judgements they make. People differ in their expertise, opinions and experience and, therefore, their opinion or feedback about same manuscript can differ. In addition, reviewers do not make the decisions about which manuscript to accept or reject, but only provide their view on a manuscript, which aids the editors in making a decision.

Peer review and bias

The peer review process cannot be free from bias; bias can only be minimized. Generally a single blind review is criticized for the risk of bias. However, the effectiveness of the blinding process itself is questionable (Kearney & Freda 2005 , Baggs et al . 2008 , Ware 2008 ). Another flaw of the peer review system is the biased decisions of the peer reviewers. Evidence suggests that reviewers tend to accept papers that provide confirmatory results and reject those that do not confirm established theories (Mahoney 1977 ). Similarly, peer reviewers tend to accept studies that offer positive results and reject those that report negative results. This issue is referred to as ‘file drawer problem’ (Rosenthal 1979 p. 638) as the research with negative results due to non‐acceptance remain in the file drawer of the researcher and are not disseminated to the wider community. Some researchers have even mentioned that peer review works against innovative studies (Armstrong 1996 , Hojat et al . 2003 , Lee, et al . 2013 ), a point reinforced recently by the former Editor of the BMJ (Smith 2015 ). Reviews can also be influenced by the characteristics of authors (gender, political or religious affiliation, institutional affiliation, nationality, country of origin) (Smith 2015 , Fox et al . 2016 ) and whether they are identified by the editor or proposed by the author (Kowalczuk et al . 2015 ). These issues can be minimized by ensuring reviewers are aware of and adhere to ethical principles of review.

Despite various issues, the usefulness of the peer review process cannot be overlooked. The process of peer review, mainly in publishing but also in other aspects of academic life is regularly discussed (Fyfe 2015 , Smith 2015 ). The process recently came under the scrutiny of the British government (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 2011 ) and other bodies (Watson 2012 ) after some accusations about biased publishing in the field of climate science. The scrutiny was in‐depth and prolonged, but the conclusion was that the peer review system in it various manifestations were far from perfect, but that it was the best we had and should continue.

It is essential to remember that peer reviewing is a voluntary activity, which means that the reviewers are not paid for their work and often complete reviews in their own time. While contributing to reviewing processes is a professional and moral obligation of any author whose work has undergone peer review (Priem & Rasheed 2006 ), it is important to make this activity as rewarding and developmental as possible. Recognizing reviewers for their work by publishing their names in the journal or providing them with awards and recognition certificates can be a useful strategy. More recently, various publishers and journals have started using these strategies to recognize the reviewers' contribution. Such strategies may be useful and may increase the motivation of reviewers and, in turn, may enhance quality of review by reviewers.

Peer review is one of various mechanisms used to ensure the quality of publications in academic journals. It helps authors, journal editors and the reviewer themselves. It is a process that is unlikely to be eliminated from the publication process. All forms of peer review have their own strengths and weaknesses. To make the process more effective and useful, it is important to develop peer review skills, especially, among postgraduate students. There should be published guidelines and help for novice peer reviewers. Mentoring new reviewers and sharing the feedback of different reviewers can help new reviewers. More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of the peer review process.

Conflict of interest

Author contributions.

All authors have agreed on the final version and meet at least one of the following criteria [recommended by the ICMJE ( http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ )]:

• substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
• Amsen E. (2014) What is Post‐Publication Peer Review? Available at http://blog.f1000research.com/2014/07/08/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/on 15 December 2015.
• Armstrong S.J. (1996) We need to rethink the editorial role of peer reviewers . The Chronicle of Higher Education 43 ( 9 ), B3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baggs J.G., Broome M.E., Dougherty M.C., Freda M.C. & Kearney M.H. (2008) Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals . Journal of Advanced Nursing 64 ( 2 ), 131–138. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbash F. (2015) Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer‐review scandal . Washington Post . Available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/ on 30 January 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein R. (2015) PLOS ONE Ousts Reviewer, Editor After Sexist Peer‐Review Storm ScienceInsider 1 May . Available at http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/04/sexist-peer-review-elicits-furious-twitter-response on 07 December 2015
• Bordage G. & Caelleigh A.S. (2001) A tool for reviewers: “Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts” . Academic Medicine 76 ( 9 ), 904–908. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brazeau G.A., DiPiro J.T., Fincham J.E., Boucher B.A. & Tracy T.S. (2008) Your Role and Responsibilities in the Manuscript Peer Review Process . American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 72 ( 3 ), 69. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broome M., Dougherty M.C., Freda M.C., Kearney M.H. & Baggs J.G. (2010) Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: an international survey . Nursing Ethics 17 ( 6 ), 741–748. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christenbery T.L. (2011) Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses . Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 23 ( 1 ), 15–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Committee on Publication Ethics (2013) COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers . COPE; Available at http://publicationethics.org/files/Peer%20review%20guidelines_0.pdf on 20 July 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dipboye R.L. (2006) Peer reviews in the production of knowledge: why I stopped worrying and learned to appreciate the flaws in the review process In Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing (Baruch Y., Sullivan S. & Schepmyer H., eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 3–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dividoff F. & DeAngelis C.D. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability . Journal of American Medical Association 286 , 1232–1233. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eastwood S. (2000) Ethical issues in biomedical publication In Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication (Jones A.H. & McLellan F., eds), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 250–275. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans A.T., McNutt R.A., Fletcher S.W. & Fletcher R.H. (1993) The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good‐quality reviews . Journal of General Internal Medicine 8 ( 8 ), 422–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox C.W., Burns C.S. & Meyer J.A. (2016) Editor and reviewer gender influence the peer review process but not peer review outcomes at an ecology journal . Functional Ecology 30 ( 1 ), 140–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fyfe A. (2015) Peer Review: Not as old as you Might Think . Times Higher Eductaion; Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think on 12 March 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert J.R., Williams E.S. & Lundberg G.D. (1994) Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process? Journal of the American Medical Association 272 , 139–142. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godlee F., Gale C.R. & Martyn C.N. (1998) Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports‐A randomized controlled trial . Journal of the American Medical Association 280 , 237–240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henly S.J. & Dougherty M.C. (2009) Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research . Nursing Outlook 57 , 18–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hojat M., Gonnella J.S. & Caelleigh A.S. (2003) Impartial judgment by the ‘gatekeepers’ of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process . Advances in Health Sciences Education 8 , 75–96. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2011) Peer Review in Scientific Publications . The Stationery Office Ltd, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunter J. (2012) Post‐publication review: opning up scientific conversation . Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6 , 63. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jefferson T., Alderson P., Wager E. & Davidoff F. (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review . Journal of the American Medical Association 287 , 2784–2786. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jefferson T., Rudin M., Brodney Folse S. & Davidoff F. (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2 , MR000016. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000016.pub3 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kearney M.H. & Freda M.C. (2005) Nurse Editors' Views on the peer Review Process . Research in Nursing & Health 28 , 444–452. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kowalczuk M.K., Dudbridge F., Nanda S., Harriman S.L., Patel J. & Moylan E.C. (2015) Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author‐suggested and non‐author‐suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single‐blind peer review models . BMJ Open 5 , e008707. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen‐2015‐008707 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kriegeskorte N. (2012) Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post‐publicatoin peer review and rating for science . Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6 , 79. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kronick D.A. (1990) Peer‐review in 18th‐century scientific journalism . Journal of the American Medical Association 263 , 1321–1322. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C.J., Sugimoto C.R., Zhang G. & Cronin B. (2013) Bias in peer review . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 ( 1 ), 2–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipworth W.L., Kerridge I.H., Carter S.M. & Little M. (2011) Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing . Social Science & Medicine 72 , 1056–1063. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovejoy T.I., Revenson T.A. & France C.R. (2011) Reviewing manuscripts for peer‐review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers . Annals of Behavioral Medicine 42 ( 1 ), 1–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahoney M.J. (1977) Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system . Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 ( 2 ), 161–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moylan E. (2015) Inappropriate Manipulation of Peer Review . BioMed Central blog; Available at http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/03/26/manipulation-peer-review/on 15 March 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel J. (2014) Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials . BMC Medicine 12 ( 1 ), 1–7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pierson C.A. (2011) Reviewing Journal Manuscripts: An Easy to Follow Guide for any Nurse Reviewing Journal Manuscripts for Publication . Wiley‐Blackwell; Available at http://naepub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/24329-Nursing-ReviewingMSS12ppselfcover_8.5x11_for_web.pdf on 15 March 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Priem R.L. & Rasheed A.A. (2006) “Reviewing as a Vital Professional Service” In Winning Reviews: A Guide for Evaluating Scholarly Writing (Baruch Y., Sullivan S. & Schepmyer H., eds.). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 27–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Provenzale J.M. & Stanley R.J. (2006) A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript . Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology 34 ( 2 ), 92–99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Relman A.S. & Angell M. (1989) How good is peer review? New England Journal of Medicine 321 ( 12 ), 827–829. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rennie D. (2003) Editorial peer review: its development and rationale In Peer Review in Health Sciences , 2nd edn (Godlee F. & Jefferson T., eds), BMJ Books, BMJ publishing group, pp. 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Smith R. & Black N. (1998) Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial . Journal of American Medical Association 280 , 234–237. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenthal R. (1979) The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results . Psychological Bulletin 86 ( 3 ), 638. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothwell P.M. & Martyn C.N. (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123 , 1964–1969. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shattell M., Chinn P., Thomas S. & Cowling W.R. (2010) Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals . Journal of Nursing Scholarship 42 , 58–65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shea J.A., Caelleigh A.S., Pangaro L. & Steinecke A. (2001) Review process . Academic Medicine 76 ( 9 ), 911–914. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith R. (1999) Opening of BMJ peer review . British Medical Journal 318 , 4–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith E. (2015) Ineffective at any dose? Why peer review simply doesn't work . Times Higher Eductaion . Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/content/the-peer-review-drugs-dont-work on 15 March 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teixeira da Silva J.A. & Dobránski C.Sc (2015) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post‐publication peer review . Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22 , 22–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The British Academy (2007) Peer Review: The Challenges for the Humanities and Social Sciences A British Academy Report . The British Academy; Available at from http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/peer-review.cfm on 20 June 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ware M. (2008) Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives . Publishing Research Consortium, London. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson R. (2012) Peer review under the spotlight in the UK . Journal of Advanced Nursing 68 ( 4 ), 718–720. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson R. (2016) PubPeer: never heard of it? You have now . Nurse Author & Editor 26 ( 1 ), 2. [ Google Scholar ]

The STEM Gender Gap: A Literature Review

Article sidebar.

Main Article Content

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is vital for any advancing society. While diversity in STEM has improved significantly over the years, there is still evidence that gender inequality persists. The lack of diversity regarding gender is often referred to as the STEM gender gap.  To delve deeper into this topic, the information presented in this literature review discusses the issues, causes, consequences, and solutions of the STEM gender gap. 

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

• Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution License  that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.  
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See  The Effect of Open Access ).
• Student authors waive FERPA rights for only the publication of the author submitted works. Specifically: Students of Indiana University East voluntarily agree to submit their own works to The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East , with full understanding of FERPA rights and in recognition that for this one, specific instance they understand that  The Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East is Public and Open Access. Additionally, the Journal is viewable via the Internet and searchable via Indiana University, Google, and Google-Scholar search engines.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.