peer reviewed research library

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of The Streets are Talking: Public Forms of Creative Expression from Around the World
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Peer Review: An Introduction: Where to Find Peer Reviewed Sources

• Why not just use Google or Wikipedia?
• Where to Find Peer Reviewed Sources
• Where to Get More Help

Need More Help?

Have more questions? Contact Scholarly Communication and Publishing at [email protected]   for more information and guidance.

Ask a Librarian

The Ask a Librarian service for general reference is available during all of the hours when the Main Library is open. Visit the  Ask a Librarian  page to chat with a librarian.

Why is it so hard to find Peer-Reviewed Sources?

It isn't hard to find peer-reviewed sources: you just need to know where to look!  If you start in the right place, you can usually find a relevant, peer-reviewed source for your research in as few clicks as a Google search, and you can even use many of the search techniques you use in Google and Wikipedia.

The easiest way to find a peer-reviewed article is by using one of the Library's numerous databases. All of the Library's databases are listed in the Online Journals and Databases index. The databases are divided by name and discipline.

Departmental libraries and library subject guides have created subject-focused lists of electronic and print research resources that are useful for their disciplines. You can search the library directory  for links to the departmental libraries at the University of Illinois Library, or search library websites by college  if you're not sure which departmental library serves your subject.

Peer-Reviewed Resources for Disciplinary Topics

There are numerous print and digital resources for specific disciplines, areas of study, and specialist fields.  To find research resources and databases for your area, consult the comprehensive directory of LibGuides , the websites of specialist libraries, and above all, contact a librarian for help !

Here are a few major databases for finding peer-reviewed research sources in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences:

• MLA International Bibliography This link opens in a new window Indexes critical materials on literature, languages, linguistics, and folklore. Proved access to citations from worldwide publications, including periodicals, books, essay collections, working papers, proceedings, dissertations and bibliographies. more... less... Alternate Access Link
• Web of Science (Core Collection) This link opens in a new window Web of Science indexes core journal articles, conference proceedings, data sets, and other resources in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities.
• Academic Search Ultimate This link opens in a new window A scholarly, multidisciplinary database providing indexing and abstracts for over 10,000 publications, including monographs, reports, conference proceedings, and others. Also includes full-text access to over 5,000 journals. Offers coverage of many areas of academic study including: archaeology, area studies, astronomy, biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, ethnic & multicultural studies, food science & technology, general science, geography, geology, law, mathematics, mechanical engineering, music, physics, psychology, religion & theology, women's studies, and other fields. more... less... Alternate Access Link
• IEEE Xplore This link opens in a new window Provides full-text access to IEEE transactions, IEEE and IEE journals, magazines, and conference proceedings published since 1988, and all current IEEE standards; brings additional search and access features to IEEE/IEE digital library users. Browsable by books & e-books, conference publications, education and learning, journals and magazines, standards and by topic. Also provides links to IEEE standards, IEEE spectrum and other sites.
• Scopus This link opens in a new window Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database including peer-reviewed titles from international publishers, Open Access journals, conference proceedings, trade publications and quality web sources. Subject coverage includes: Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Engineering; Life and Health Sciences; Social Sciences, Psychology and Economics; Biological, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.
• Business Source Ultimate This link opens in a new window Provides bibliographic and full text content, including indexing and abstracts for scholarly business journals back as far as 1886 and full text journal articles in all disciplines of business, including marketing, management, MIS, POM, accounting, finance and economics. The database full text content includes financial data, books, monographs, major reference works, book digests, conference proceedings, case studies, investment research reports, industry reports, market research reports, country reports, company profiles, SWOT analyses and more. more... less... Alternate Access Link
• << Previous: Why not just use Google or Wikipedia?
• Next: Where to Get More Help >>
• Last Updated: Nov 9, 2023 11:15 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.illinois.edu/peerreview

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

April 9, 2024

PLOS ONE 

An inclusive journal community working together to advance science by making all rigorous research accessible without barriers

Calling all experts!

Plos one is seeking talented individuals to join our editorial board. .

Computational Biology

See Elegans: Simple-to-use, accurate, and automatic 3D detection of neural activity from densely packed neurons

Lanza and collagues presented a novel method (See Elegans) for automatic neuron sementation and tracking in C. elegans.

Image credit: Fig 2 by Lanza et al., CC BY 4.0

Pharmacology

Enhancing radioprotection: A chitosan-based chelating polymer is a versatile radioprotective agent for prophylactic and therapeutic interventions against radionuclide contamination

Durand and colleagues report the evaluation of a functionalized chitosan polymer for treating exposure to radioactive isotopes, including uranium, for which there are no suitable current countermeasures.

Image credit: Radioactive Materials Area by Kerry, CC BY 2.0

Mental Health

Cross-cultural variation in experiences of acceptance, camouflaging and mental health difficulties in autism: A registered report

In this Registered Report, Keating and colleagues explore the relationship between autism acceptance, camoflauging, and mental health in a cross-cultural sample of autistic adults.

Image credit: man-390342_1280 by PDPPics, Pixabay

The double-edged scalpel: Experiences and perceptions of pregnancy and parenthood during Canadian surgical residency training

Peters and colleagues survey female surgical trainees, who report experiencing higher rates of pregnancy complications when compared to non-surgical counterparts, more negative stigma and bias, and other social and logistical challenges. This highlights the need to create a culture where both birthing and non-birthing parents are empowered and supported.

Image credit: woman-1284353_1280 by Pexels, Pixabay

International Day of Women and Girls in Science – Interview with Dr. Swetavalli Raghavan

PLOS ONE Associate Editor Dr Johanna Pruller interviews Dr Swetavalli Raghavan, full professor and founder of Scientists & Co. about mentorship, role models, and the changing landscape for women in science.

Image credit: Dr Swetavalli Raghavan by EveryONE, CC BY 4.0

International Women’s Day – Interview with PLOS ONE Academic Editor Dr. Siaw Shi Boon

PLOS ONE Senior Editor Dr Jianhong Zhou interviews PLOS ONE Academic Editor Dr Siaw Shi Boon about her path to becoming a scientist, challenges facing women in science, and how to encourage more women to become scientists.

Image credit: Dr Siaw Shi Boon by EveryONE, CC BY 4.0

Editor Spotlight: Simon Porcher

In this interview, PLOS ONE Academic Editor Dr Simon Porcher discusses his role as editor, enhancing reproducibility in scientific reporting, and how we can act in future pandemics.

Image credit: Simon Porcher by EveryONE, CC BY 4.0

Child development

Childhood experiences and sleep problems: A cross-sectional study on the indirect relationship mediated by stress, resilience and anxiety

Ashour and colleagues investigate the relationship between childhood experiences and sleep quality in adulthood.

Image credit: Alarm Clock by Congerdesign, Pixabay

Sports and exercise medicine

Responsiveness of respiratory function in Parkinson’s Disease to an integrative exercise programme: A prospective cohort study

McMahon and colleagues report the effectiveness of an exercise intervention on respiratory function.

Image credit: Side view doctor looking at radiography by Freepik, Freepik

The great urban shift: Climate change is predicted to drive mass species turnover in cities

Filazzola and colleagues model how terrestrial wildlife within 60 Canadian and American cities will be affected by climate change.

Image credit: Fig 3 by Filazzola et al., CC BY 4.0

Accessibility

Color Quest: An interactive tool for exploring color palettes and enhancing accessibility in data visualization

Nelli presents an open-source tool for visualizing how various data plots appear to individuals with color blindness, towards improved accessibility.

Image credit: Fig 1 by Nelli et al., CC BY 4.0

Collections

Browse the latest collections of papers from across PLOS.

Watch this space for future collections of papers in PLOS ONE.

Conferences 2024

New opportunities to meet our editorial staff in 2024 will be announced soon.

Publish with PLOS ONE

• Submission Instructions
• Submit Your Manuscript

Connect with Us

• PLOS ONE on Twitter
• PLOS on Facebook

Get new content from PLOS ONE in your inbox

Thank you you have successfully subscribed to the plos one newsletter., sorry, an error occurred while sending your subscription. please try again later..

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.25(3); 2014 Oct

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.

Finding Peer Reviewed Sources: Databases with Peer Reviewed Content

• What is Peer Review?
• Is It Peer Reviewed?
• Databases with Peer Reviewed Content

Limiting to Peer Reviewed Search Results

In MCPHS Smart Search and most databases you can limit your search results (either before or after you start searching) to scholarly or peer reviewed content with the click of a button. Look for that button in a utility/tools location , and if you don't see it immediately look for show more and find it there.

Go to the  A-Z List of Databases

Databases with Peer Reviewed Articles but No Limiter

These are a few of our databases that contain peer-reviewed articles. These particular ones don't have a specific way to limit searches to just peer-reviewed articles. 

Please use the Is It Peer Reviewed process to figure out if the articles you find through them are peer reviewed.

• PubMed (MCPHS link) PubMed includes Medline. You do not need to search both PubMed and Medline (via Ovid). Provided by the National Library of Medicine, this free database includes access to Medline, citations to other life sciences journals not indexed in Medline (primarily general sciences and chemistry), and links to the molecular biology databases maintained by National Center for Biotechnology Center (NCBI). Read free articles. Use Get Full Text (MCPHS) for articles that are not free.

• Scopus Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature with more than 20,500 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. Scopus offers researchers a quick, easy and comprehensive resource to support their research needs in the scientific, technical, medical and social sciences fields and arts and humanities. Limited full-text available. [Free to MCPHS users download mobile app for your mobile device.]
• Cochrane Library The Cochrane Library is a collection of three databases that contain different types of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making, and tool you can use to get quick answers to clinical questions. Includes: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) – Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) – Clinical Trials, Epistemonikos - "Other Reviews," Clinical Answers.

Databases with Peer Reviewed Summaries, Books & Other Sources

These databases have great, high quality resources - search them individually for peer reviewed information.

• Clinical Pharmacology Powered by Clinical Key Access to monographs for all U.S. prescription drugs, herbal and nutritional supplements, over the counter products, new and investigational drugs, and patient education information (in English and Spanish). This site will automatically adjust to fit your screen.
• eMedicine A clinical reference tool that contains articles on over 7000 diseases and disorders written and edited by physicians. Each article is peer-reviewed by physicians and a PharmD before it is published; Also provides practice guidelines, images, & references; Updated regularly. From WebMD.
• LactMed (Drugs and Lactation Database) A peer-reviewed and fully referenced database of drugs to which breastfeeding mothers may be exposed. Among the data included are maternal and infant levels of drugs, possible effects on breastfed infants and on lactation, and alternate drugs to consider. From the National Library of Medicine.
• Natural Medicines Information on herbs and Integrative Medicine. Developed by international collaborators from highly regarded academic institutions to provide quality information that has been validated and peer reviewed. Formed from the merger between the former Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database site and the former Natural Standard database.
• PDQ (Physician Data Query) A comprehensive database of information and peer-reviewed summaries about cancer treatment, screening, prevention, genetics & supportive care, plus clinical trials. Features: drug dictionary, cancer terms dictionary, search for clinical trials. From the National Cancer Institute.
• << Previous: Is It Peer Reviewed?
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 5:39 PM
• URL: https://mcphs.libguides.com/peer_review

Using Databases for Your Research

• What is a Subject Database?
• Selecting Databases
• Searching for Peer-Reviewed Articles
• General Tips for Searching in EBSCO Databases
• APA PsycInfo
• CINAHL Plus
• UDiscover This link opens in a new window
• Web of Science

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 937-229-4234

Text us: 937-412-0023

Twitter: @roeschlibrary

What is peer review? What does "Scholarly/Academic" mean?

What is "peer review"?  Peer review is a process conducted by many academic publishers to assess author submissions before publication. It aims to ensure that the content being published (typically in an academic journal article or book) is written to the highest standard, adheres to subject-specific research methodology, and contributes something new to an academic field. Importantly, peer-review is done at the article level and published within a journal issue. There may be an editorial at the beginning of a journal issue that is not peer-reviewed, followed by a number of journal articles that are peer-reviewed. Similarly, an academic book (or monograph) published by an academic press might contain a collection of chapters published by different authors, each of which are peer-reviewed, with an introductory chapter by the editors that is not peer reviewed.

Different stages of the peer review process.  Having a manuscript go through the peer-review process can take significant time, lasting for months or even years. Typically the process goes as follows:

A researcher in any field submits their manuscript to a relevant academic publisher for inclusion in one of their journals or for publication as a standalone book (also known as a monograph).

The editors of the publication review the submission to decide whether or not to send the manuscript to multiple subject experts (the "peers") for review. These peer-reviewers are experts in their field and are often (but not always) employed as faculty members at universities. 

The reviewers receive the manuscript with all information about the author and their institution removed. Making the manuscript anonymous helps ensure that the process is "blind," meaning that bias is removed in cases when the reviewers know the author(s).

The reviewers take time to review the submission and make suggestions on how to improve the work. The reviewers might also reject the work outright if they find it to be of substandard quality, or if they feel it is unoriginal. 

The author receives any recommended revisions or questions from the reviewers and is asked to implemented the changes. The author resubmits the revised manuscript. Once all requested revisions have been made, the peer reviewers and the editors of the journal will proceed with formally accepting the study for future publication.

What does "Scholarly/Academic" refer to?  Peer-reviewed publications are often captured by a "Scholarly/Academic" filter in databases or by a "Peer Review" filter. Note: in most databases, the "Scholarly/Academic" filter will retrieve results that are mainly peer-reviewed studies, but not every single result will necessarily be peer-reviewed. Certain results can be "Scholarly/Academic" without being peer-reviewed. Accordingly, it is important to take additional steps to determine whether or not a study has been peer reviewed. Indicators of a peer-reviewed article or book chapter include:

Evidence of research, which can include either footnotes or a bibliography.

Evidence of expertise, as indicated in the author's credentials (also referred to as "author affiliation").

Explanation of research methodology.

Fairly plain journal format. Few photographs or illustrations, mostly charts or graphs.

Few advertisements.

Note:  The word “Journal” in the title is NOT an indicator that you are looking at a scholarly journal. 

Where can I find a peer-reviewed study?

The short answer is to search in one or more of the library's many subject databases . Think of the library's databases as a more reliable place to locate peer-reviewed resources than commercial search engines such as Google (or even broad academic search engines such as Google Scholar). Being highly curated in terms of what titles are indexed, these search tools help to exclude sources that may be discredited or unreliable, such as predatory journals . 

Read the database descriptions when you are deciding which one to search. Many of the database descriptions provided in our a-z list will identify whether or not they contain peer-reviewed journals and/or monographs.

Many databases also provide convenient filters to limit your results to peer-reviewed studies. 

Checking for peer review in EBSCO's interface

The majority of EBSCO databases offer a reliable way to verify whether or not a specific journal is a peer-reviewed resource.

Follow these steps to determine if a journal publishes peer-reviewed articles.

Select any of the EBSCO subject databases .

Enter the journal's name. In the example included below in the screenshot, the example of "JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association" is searched in Academic Search Complete .

Upon clicking this link, a detailed page about the publication should open. Towards the bottom of the page, there should be a field for "Peer Reviewed." If the notation is "YES," then the journal publishes peer-reviewed articles, as can be seen in the following screenshot:

Understanding EBSCO icons

You will see icons to the left of individual results when searching in databases provided by EBSCO. These icons mean different things, and their meaning can also vary across different databases, but, in general, they mean the following:

Many EBSCO databases use the following icon to signify Academic Journal (which contain peer-reviewed articles)

Many EBSCO databases use the following icon to identify Periodical sources (which are not peer reviewed)

What is a "Primary Research Article"?

Keep in mind that primary research articles . . .

are  original scientific reports  of new research findings

do not include review articles , which summarize the research literature on a particular subject, or articles using meta-analyses , which analyze pre-published data

usually include the following sections:  Introduction ,  Methods ,  Results ,  Discussion, References

are  peer-reviewed  (examined by expert(s) in the field before publication)

a peer-reviewed article is not the same as a review article, which summarizes the research literature on a particular subject

Keep in mind that secondary sources . . .

are summaries or interpretations of original research – not the original research itself

are often useful and easier-to-read summaries of research in an area

references or citations can point the way to useful primary research articles.

acceptable formats may include books (find these through the library catalog) and review articles (articles which organize and critically analyze the research of others on a topic)

blogs, YouTube videos, newspaper articles, book reviews, press releases and .com websites are NOT among formats usually appropriate as sources in scientific research

• << Previous: Selecting Databases
• Next: General Tips for Searching in EBSCO Databases >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 9:03 AM
• URL: https://libguides.udayton.edu/searching-in-databases

• Library databases
• Library website

Verify Peer Review: Home

Verify peer review.

Check whether a journal is peer reviewed with  Ulrich's Periodicals Directory .

Search for the  title of the journal (not article):

A referee shirt next to the journal means it's peer reviewed.

Learn how to verify peer review in Ulrich's

What is peer review.

Peer review is a  scholarly form of review used by journals only for journal articles.  After an article is sent to an academic journal, the editor sends it to several peer reviewers — typically scholars in the field — for evaluation .

These peer reviewers examine the paper's methodology, literature review, and conclusions. They note the existence of bias or other flaws. The peer reviewers may accept the article, require rewrites from the authors, or reject the article.

If you are asked to find articles that are peer-reviewed, what you are really looking for are articles from a peer-reviewed journal .

Peer review can also be called: 

• blind peer review
• scholarly peer review
• refereeing or refereed

Search Tip:   Peer-reviewed journals may also contain items that are not peer reviewed, such as letters to the editor, opinion pieces, and book reviews. Even if you check the peer-review limiter box, you still need to examine the items carefully to be sure they are articles.

• Click on the  Search icon  and find your journal in the search results. 
• Look for the refereed icon, shaped like an umpire's jersey, indicating the journal is peer reviewed. It displays on the left side of the page, near the article title.

Check the journal's website

Journal websites will typically discuss editorial processes, including peer review.

This information is often listed in the following areas:

• editorial policies
• instructions for authors
• submission guidelines

A simple Google search for the journal will usually locate the journal's website.

Examples of Editorial Policies:

• APA's review policy for authors
• Management Science Journal's Submission Guidelines
• Journal of the American Medical Association Instruction for Authors

Are dissertations peer reviewed?

No. While dissertations are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, they are still considered student work.

Dissertations are often included in scholarly writing, although they are used sparingly. If you are unsure if you can use a dissertation in your assignment or literature review, talk with your instructor or chair.

• Next Page: Limit to Peer-Reviewed Articles
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

• Collections
• Services & Support

Which Source Should I Use?

• The Right Source For Your Need-Authority
• Finding Subject Specific Sources: Research Guides
• Understanding Peer Reviewed Articles
• Understanding Peer Reviewed Articles- Arts & Humanities
• How to Read a Journal Article
• Locating Journals
• How to Find Streaming Media

The Peer Review Process

So you need to use scholarly, peer-reviewed articles for an assignment...what does that mean? 

Peer review  is a process for evaluating research studies before they are published by an academic journal. These studies typically communicate  original research  or analysis for other researchers. 

The Peer Review Process at a Glance:

Looking for peer-reviewed articles?  Try searching in OneSearch or a library database  and look for options to limit your results to scholarly/peer-reviewed or academic journals. Check out this brief tutorial to show you how:   How to Locate a Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Article

Part 1: Watch the Video

Part 1: watch the video all about peer review (3 min.) and reflect on discussion questions..

Discussion Questions

After watching the video, reflect on the following questions:

• According to the video, what are some of the pros and cons of the peer review process?
• Why is the peer review process important to scholarship?
• Do you think peer reviewers should be paid for their work? Why or why not?

Part 2: Practice

Part 2: take an interactive tutorial on reading a research article for your major..

Includes a certification of completion to download and upload to Canvas.

Social Sciences

(e.g. Psychology, Sociology)

(e.g. Health Science, Biology)

Arts & Humanities

(e.g. Visual & Media Arts, Cultural Studies, Literature, History)

Click on the handout to view in a new tab, download, or print.

For Instructors

• Teaching Peer Review for Instructors

In class or for homework, watch the video “All About Peer Review” (3 min.) .

Video discussion questions:

• According to the video, what are some of the pros and cons of the peer review process

Assignment Ideas

• Ask students to conduct their own peer review of an important journal article in your field. Ask them to reflect on the process. What was hard to critique?
• Have students examine a journals’ web page with information for authors. What information is given to the author about the peer review process for this journal?
• Assign this reading by CSUDH faculty member Terry McGlynn, "Should journals pay for manuscript reviews?" What is the author's argument? Who profits the most from published research? You could also hold a debate with one side for paying reviewers and the other side against.
• Search a database like Cabell’s for information on the journal submission process for a particular title or subject. How long does peer review take for a particular title? Is it is a blind review? How many reviewers are solicited? What is their acceptance rate?
• Assign short readings that address peer review models. We recommend this issue of Nature on peer review debate and open review and this Chronicle of Higher Education article on open review in Shakespeare Quarterly .

Proof of Completion

Mix and match this suite of instructional materials for your course needs!

Questions about integrating a graded online component into your class, contact the Online Learning Librarian, Rebecca Nowicki ( [email protected] ).

Example of a certificate of completion:

• << Previous: Finding Subject Specific Sources: Research Guides
• Next: Understanding Peer Reviewed Articles- Arts & Humanities >>
• Last Updated: Dec 11, 2023 4:29 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sdsu.edu/WhichSource

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

• Log in to your Library account
• Hours and Maps
• Connect from Off Campus
• UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Evaluating resources: scholarly & popular sources.

• Scholarly & Popular Sources
• Primary & Secondary Sources This link opens in a new window

Scholarly and Popular Sources

The table below shows which characteristics are more commonly associated with scholarly or popular sources. Both scholarly and popular sources can be appropriate for your research purposes, depending on your research question, but research assignments will often require you to consult primarily with scholarly materials. 

Other kinds of sources

Grey Literature  refers to "reports, conference proceedings, preprints, working papers, theses, dissertations, personal communications, technical notes" and other ephemeral scientific sources, often published by government, business or academic organizations * . This kind of literature can be key for emerging research and alternative perspectives. To discover the grey literature in your field of interest, browse the article databases  for your subject . 

Government Publications  are a subset of grey literature, and can be  important sources for state, federal, and international perspectives on official government proceedings  of all kinds. F or more information on the many varieties of government documents, consult the library's  Government Information guides .

Tertiary Sources refer to encyclopedias, dictionaries, textbooks and other reference materials that provide broad overviews of particular topics. Where secondary sources summarize and interpret an event or phenomenon, tertiary sources summarize and interpret other resources.  They can be a great place to begin studying unfamiliar topics. To find tertiary sources, take a look at the library's collection of online encyclopedias & almanacs , or  dictionaries, thesauri, & quotations .

​ Trade Literature  refers to journals, websites, newsletters and other sources aimed at professionals in a particular field. These sources will often report news and trends in the field, reviews of products related to the industry at hand, interviews with leaders in the field, as well as job listings and advertisements.  To discover the trade literature in your field of interest, take a look at the  business database finder  or the  library research subject guide  for your field of interest. See also:  Engineering Trade Publications ,  Healthcare Industry Information .

* Quote from " Grey Literature ," in the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd Ed .

Peer Review

A peer reviewed or peer refereed journal or article is one in which a group of widely acknowledged experts in a field reviews the content for scholarly soundness and academic value.

You can limit your search results to peer reviewed materials in many library databases:

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Primary & Secondary Sources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 2, 2024 9:27 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/evaluating-resources

Peer-reviewed journal articles

What is peer review, why use peer-reviewed articles, peer reviewed articles video.

• Scholarly and academic - good enough?
• Find peer-reviewed articles
• Check if it's peer reviewed

Reusing content from this guide

Attribute our work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Further help

Contact the Librarian team .

Phone: + 617 334 64312 during opening hours

Email: [email protected]

Peer review (also known as refereeing) is a process where other scholars in the same field (peers) evaluate the quality of a research paper before it's published. The aim is to ensure that the work is rigorous and coherent, is based on sound research, and adds to what we already know. 

The purpose of peer review is to maintain the integrity of research and to ensure that only valid and quality research is published.

To learn more about the peer review process see:

• What is peer review? Comprehensive overview of the peer review process and different types of peer review from Elsevier

Your lecturers will often require you to use information from academic journal articles that are peer reviewed (also known as refereed).

Peer-reviewed articles are credible sources of information. The articles have been written and reviewed by trusted experts in the field, and represent the best scholarship and research currently available.

Explanation of peer reviewed articles and journals (YouTube, 1m51s)

• Next: Scholarly and academic - good enough? >>
• Last Updated: Dec 6, 2023 2:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/how-to-find/peer-reviewed-articles

•   [email protected]

Getting Started with Research at Shapiro Library

What are peer reviewed journals.

"Many scholarly journals use a process of peer review prior to publishing an article, whereby other scholars in the author's field or specialty critically assess a draft of the article. Peer-reviewed journals (also called refereed journals) are scholarly journals that only publish articles that have passed through this review process. The review process helps ensure that the published articles reflect solid scholarship in their fields." Source: https://guides.lib.calpoly.edu/c.php?g=902806&p=6549460#s-lg-box-20814068

Check out the video below for more information:

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Sources
• Next: Choosing a Topic & Developing a Research Question >>

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Research Guide for SSCI 100 Government, History, and International Relations

Evaluating sources.

• Ways To Set Yourself Up For Success
• Background Information
• Methodology Sources
• Subject Databases

Peer-Reviewed

• Using Sources
• Other Libraries

Consider the following criteria to evaluate your sources. 

• Currency: Is the publication date appropriate for your topic?
• Relevance: Who is the intended audience and does the information help answer your question?
• Authority: Do the author credentials, organizational affiliation, and publisher indicate expertise?
• Accuracy: Is the information reliable and supported by evidence or peer-review?
• Purpose: Does the information exist as fact, opinion, propaganda, or bias?
• Evaluating Sources from the Harvard Guide to Using Sources

What does "peer-reviewed" and "scholarly" articles mean?

• Peer-reviewed articles are approved by other scholars through a specific process: Authors submit their articles to a peer-reviewed journal and then the journal editor sends it to other experts in the field to review the article and provide feedback to the editor. The peer-reviewers and editor may decide the article does not meet standards for publication, or they might ask the authors to make revisions. If the articl eventually meets all standards it will be published in the journal. 
• << Previous: Subject Databases
• Next: Using Sources >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

Copy of Library DIY

• Choosing a Topic
• Understanding my Assignment
• Possible Topics
• From Topic to Research Question
• What Types of Sources I Need
• Where to Search
• Search Tips
• Library Does Not Have Item
• Terms & Keywords to Search With
• These Do Not Describe My Need
• Looking for Articles
• Peer-reviewed Articles
• Newspaper Articles
• I Need Full-Text
• Found Too Little or Too Much
• Google Scholar and Library Links
• Libraries Do Not Have Item
• Which Items are Relevant to My Topic
• Find More from What You Have
• Looking for Books
• Books on My Topic
• Browse Print Books
• Primary Sources
• Help Searching
• Looking for Journals
• Looking for a Specific Journal
• Information About a Specific Journal
• Significant Journals in My Field
• Company, Industry, or Market Information
• Looking for a Thesis or Dissertation
• Items in Other Languages
• Help in My Subject Area
• Looking for a Specific Book
• Search for a Book
• Where to Find a Call Number
• Looking for a Specific Article
• Looking for a Textbook for My Class
• Materials from Instructor on Reserve
• Help with a Citation
• Looking for a Specific Video
• Peer Reviewed Articles
• Scholarly or Peer Reviewed Articles
• Terms or Keywords to Search With
• Looking for a Textbook
• Is Book This Scholarly
• Book Is Checked Out
• View Holds & Renew Library Materials
• Which Items Are Relevant to My Topic
• Appropriate Sources to Use
• What Does Peer Reviewed Means
• Is This Book Scholarly
• Significant Work in My Field
• Journals in My Field
• Who Has Cited A Work?
• What Are Archival Resources?
• What Does Archives & Special Collections Have?
• Citing Sources in APA Format
• Citing Sources in MLA Format
• Quoting and Paraphrasing
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• I Need Help Integrating Sources into My Paper
• Saving and Organizing What I've Found
• Generate a Quick Citation
• Manage My Citations
• Troubleshooting Printing Issues
• Problem with a Library Resource
• Trouble Accessing a Resource or Item
• Article Linker is Not Working
• E-book is Not Available
• Book I Need Is Checked Out
• Do I Need to Pay for an Article
• Where to Find a Call Number in the Library
• Not a Current Student
• Help Logging In

I Do Not Know What Peer Reviewed Means

What is a peer reviewed article.

A peer reviewed article can have many names such as:

• Peer reviewed

The Process of Peer Review

Step 1: A draft of the article is sent to experts in the field

Step 2: The experts check for the following:

• Ensure there are no errors.
• Evaluate the quality of the research documented in the article.
• Check for unsupported claims.
• Recommends revisions to improve the article prior to publication.

Step 3: Author revises article based on feedback.

Step 4: The Article is Published!

Common Characteristics of Peer Reviewed Articles:

• The authors credentials include an advanced degree and affiliation with a university.
• The writing style uses technical terms because it is written for other scholars.
• The article contains an abstract, literature review, and reference list.
• << Previous: Peer Reviewed Articles
• Next: Is This Book Scholarly >>
• Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 10:41 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.tamucc.edu/c.php?g=1393779

Engineering 100W

• Associations & Websites
• Newspaper Sources

Identify Peer-Reviewed

What is peer-review, article types, types of scholarly articles.

• Citation Styles
• Topic Development
• Evaluating Articles
• Ask a Librarian

The library subscribes to Ulrich’s Periodical Directory , which contains comprehensive journal publication information, including whether the journal employs a peer review process. Ulrich’s uses the term “refereed” instead of “peer-review.” The presence of a sports referee jersey indicates that the journal uses peer review.

To access Ulrich’s, use the link above or:

• Navigate to  library.sjsu.edu
• Select “Articles & Databases”
• Click “U”
• Select “Ulrich's Periodicals Directory”

Enter the title of the journal (not the title of the article) or the ISSN of the journal in the search field. After finding the journal’s record, look for the field, “Refereed.” The value should be “Yes.

The following video demonstrates how to check if a journal uses a peer-review process.

Database Spotlight: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory from SJSU King Library on Vimeo .

Scholarly articles are submitted to journals (or conferences), which may use a peer-review process. This means several other subject experts review article submissions for quality, and will recommend whether the article should be published in the journal (or conference). Ideally, peer review ensures that only high-quality research is published. However, like most processes, peer review isn’t perfect, so it’s important to always think critically about the articles you read.

(Image from UCSD ).

Journals or magazines (and the articles therein) can generally be classified as scholarly, trade or popular. In engineering, trade journals are valuable sources of information. They provide brief reports on discoveries, inventions, and updates.  However, trade journals are not peer-reviewed.  On the other hand, scholarly journals may be peer-reviewed.  The information in peer-reviewed articles is thorough and reliable, but they can take a long time to be published. 

(Adapted from Meriam Library, California State University, Chico).

You may encounter different types of scholarly articles in your research. Many databases have a "Document Type" search field and filter, which you can use to specify the kind of scholarly article you are interested in.

• << Previous: Newspaper Sources
• Next: Citation Styles >>
• Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 11:59 AM
• URL: https://libguides.sjsu.edu/engr100w

Lemieux Library and McGoldrick Learning Commons

Catalog search, site search.

• Seattle University
• Lemieux Library

UCOR 1600-01 Politics of the End (Professor Patrick Schoettmer)

• Scholarly/Peer Reviewed Journals
• Course Guide
• Evaluating Sources
• Find Articles
• Find Books and More
• Search Strategically
• APA Reference List - Examples

Get Research Help

Your librarian is ....

Scholarly Journals, Popular Magazine and Trade Publications

What is a Scholarly Journal?

Scholarly journals are generally published by and for experts. A publication is considered to be peer reviewed if its articles go through an official editorial process that involves review and approval by the author’s peers (people who are experts in the same subject area.) Articles in scholarly journals present new, previously unpublished research. Scholarly sources will almost always include:

• Bibliography and footnotes
• Author’s name and academic credentials

Use scholarly journals for highly focused original research.

Articles in popular magazines tend to be written by staff writers or freelance journalists and are geared towards a general audience . While most magazines adhere to editorial standards, articles do not go through a peer review process and rarely contain bibliographic citations. Popular magazines are periodicals that one typically finds at grocery stores, airport newsstands, or bookstores. Use popular magazines for a general overview of current news and opinions, or firsthand accounts of an event.

Trade publications focus on a specific profession or trade. Articles in trade magazines cover the interest of skilled laborers, technicians, and artisans. Professional magazines cover the interests of professors, librarians, and members of other fields that require advanced degrees. Subject magazines cover a topic of interest to one or more professions. Use trade magazines for overviews of news and research in a particular field .

What are the types of scholarly articles?

Scholarly articles usually fall into one of five major types: empirical studies, review articles theoretical articles, methodological or case studies. A typical article will have an abstract to summarize the article which follows. The article will introduce the problem, present a thesis statement followed by the body/methodology section.  If there is raw data, there will be a results section or if not, it could be a section called the findings section. A discussion section interprets the results in light of other studies. The last section is the conclusion which restates the thesis and suggest future research.

An empirical article contains original research. It can be either quantitative or qualitative. In format, it has an introduction (problem statement/purpose) followed by sections covering methods, results and discussion. Usually arranged chronologically.

Review articles evaluate existing published research and shows how current research relates to previous research. In the introduction, the article will define the problem of the research, then summarizes and evaluates previous research. The conclusion usually recommends possible next steps for inquiry.

Theoretical articles either advance a theory or critique a current theory.

Methodological articles either advances or modifies a methodological approach. Uses empirical data

Case studies use an individual or organzation as an illustration of a problem or solution

• << Previous: Course Guide
• Next: Evaluating Sources >>
• Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 9:24 AM
• URL: https://library.seattleu.edu/guides/politicsend

Library Guides

Lit/spe 5040 teacher as researcher: research review.

• Sample Search
• Search Strategies
• Literacy Journals and Databases
• Writing & Citing
• Additional Help

Education Librarian

IMC Librarian

Where do you find information.

Most people find information and do research online. But there are many layers to the web that go beyond what you typically see via Google. Explore the various layers by clicking through the Search Sphere.

Library Research Tools

How does the university library work.

Generally, the university library purchases or subscribes to all sorts of specialized information to support the research that happens in the various majors here at App State - research being done by both students and professors .

This information takes many forms: books, ebooks, streaming films, peer-reviewed journals (mostly online), and much more.

Because it supports the majors, the information is mostly organized by discipline or subject in our physical and online spaces.

In other words, all of our physical books about biology 'live' together on the shelves in Belk Library. And all of our online content about biology can accessed through our  databases for biology  available via Belk Library's website.

What's a library database?

Databases are just searchable online collections of information that the library subscribes to. Because these are subscription-based, or "behind the paywall," this is information that only App State students and professors have access to. It's also helpful to know that some larger databases contain research from multiple disciplines.

What is APPsearch?

APPsearch is Belk Library's portal that allows students to search most of our research databases at one time. You can find it on our homepage . Think of it as "Google for the library" - it's a great place to start and is intended to save students time and effort. It allows you to quickly find and access books, ebooks, journal articles, and more. 

Click here to watch a video tutorial on how to use APPsearch.

Anatomy of an AppSearch Results Page

This is an interactive sample search from an AppSearch search results page. In this case, the search used the keywords, college student and anxiety. Click the "I" icons to learn more about the different parts of the page.

Scholarly/Peer Reviewed Articles

What are "scholarly" or "peer-reviewed" articles?

• Written by scholars or experts on the topic  
• Content has been critically evaluated by other experts  
• Contain citations (footnotes and/or bibliography) documenting sources
• Within the search, choose the Limit for Scholarly/Peer-reviewed.  or
• When looking at a citation within a database, click the journal title until you reach the Publication Details.  Look for the "Peer reviewed" field.  or
• Look up the journal title in the Serials Directory .  Look in the "Refereed" field.  Refereed = Peer Reviewed

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Sample Search >>
• Last Updated: Feb 7, 2024 9:46 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.appstate.edu/re5040

University Libraries 218 College Street • PO Box 32026 • Boone, NC 28608 Phone: 828.262.2818

The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

• Contact the CEBC
• Sign up for The CEBC Connection
• Topic Areas
• Rating Scales
• Implementation-Specific Tools & Resources
• Implementation Guide
• Implementation Examples

Welcome to the CEBC: California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

The mission of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC) is to advance the effective implementation of evidence-based practices for children and families involved with the child welfare system.

For information on our sister project, the California Training Institute (CalTrin), please visit www.CalTrin.org .

• Searchable database of child welfare related programs.
• Description and information on research evidence for specific programs.
• Guidance on how to make critical decisions regarding selecting and implementing programs
• Tools and materials to provide support for choosing, implementing and sustaining a program.

Information presented on the CEBC website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. When using information obtained from the CEBC, we ask that you please use the following acknowledgment: Material/Image/Information obtained from the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC) at www.cebc4cw.org.

Glossary | Sitemap | Limitations & Disclosures

The CEBC is funded by the California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS’) Office of Child Abuse Prevention and is one of their targeted efforts to improve the lives of children and families served within child welfare system.

© copyright 2006-2024 The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare www.cebc4cw.org