Many sources that are peer-reviewed are considered
scholarly sources. Researchers have their peers review their work before it can
be published. Even if you are an expert at the top of your field, having your
paper peer-reviewed by fellow researchers helps you in more than one way— both
in getting your research published and making sure it is well-written and
presented.
Many of us don’t like it when we are criticized. We get
defensive about our work or uncomfortable about our mistakes. However, constructive
criticism is good for us. If we never let anyone criticize our work, we would
never learn and be able to get better.
So whenever you write a paper, see if you can’t find a
peer to review it for you. They might catch something you didn’t see, or have
you rewrite something to make it clearer for your audience to understand. It’s
important to remember your audience. You may find that you understand what you
wrote, but the reader would not understand without a simpler or clearer
explanation. Remember, when writing a research paper, it’s not written for you;
you know what you’re talking about. Your research is written for your audience,
so that they can see the importance of your research.
If research is the way to spread your knowledge and new
ideas, then having it peer reviewed is the way to make sure your ideas are
getting across to your readers correctly. Take advantage of constructive
criticism; having an outsider’s perspective can be very helpful.
Kimberly,
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly correct, peer-review is an incredibly helpful process. I do believe that many people are uncomfortable when it comes to others critiquing their work. This is, to a certain extent, understandable. The thought of someone decimating our research after so much time and effort has been put into it is, to say the least, an uncomfortable feeling. This is why, as you mentioned, it is important to be fair and as un-biased as possible when critiquing another's work. I found an interesting paper by Mark Ware discussing peer-review, that wonder of the implications of your statements on it's results. The paper found that while Post-Publication peer-review is only thought to be 5% effective it encompasses 37% of peer-reviews accomplished. I find it astounding that the perceived least effective method would be utilized so often. I believe this might play right into your idea though. With post-publication peer-review, the author(s) are essentially saying "We are publishing this research regardless, feel free to authenticate it later on". To me, this appears as a defensive response to the very anxiety you mentioned. Instead of appearing sheepish, the author(s) take an almost defiant stance against those who might critique their work. Here is the link to the paper in case you are interested: http://www.publishingresearch.org.uk/documents/PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf
Thanks for the thought provoking post!