Enhancing scholarly discourse in the age of artificial intelligence: A guided approach to effective peer review process

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 18, 2023
Download
pdf
Vol. 101 No. 10 (2023): Tunis med oct 2023

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Ismail Dergaa
Primary Health Care Corporation (PHCC), Doha, Qatar/ High Institute of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia.
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8091-1856
Lilia Zakhama
Department of Cardiology , Security Forces Hospital-La Masa, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunisia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-8592
Chedly Dziri
Professor Emeritus – General Surgery, University of Tunis El Manar, Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Director of Honoris Medical Simulation Center, Tunis, Tunisia
Helmi Ben Saad
University of Sousse, Farhat Hached Hospital, Research Laboratory LR12SP09 «Heart failure», Sousse, Tunisia

Abstract

The integrity of the peer-review process (PRP) is paramount in academic publishing and serves as a critical filter for scholarly output. This mini-review centers on the introduction of comprehensive guidelines, presented in tables format, aimed at streamlining the interactions between authors and reviewers during the PRP.


These guidelines, derived from an in-depth exploration of the PRP, offer structured and practical advice to ensure constructive, transparent, and effective communication, especially related to the use of artificial intelligence. While this mini-review discusses the strengths and challenges of the current PRP, its primary focus is on providing tangible recommendations to enhance the quality and efficiency of the PRP.


By providing explicit guidelines and emphasizing the cooperative essence of peer review, this mini-review aims to improve the PRP, ensuring that it remains a robust mechanism for upholding the highest standards of research and knowledge dissemination in an evolving academic setting.

Keywords:

Academic Integrity, Evaluation, Criteria, Guidelines, Manuscript Assessment, Peer Assessment, Publishing Standards, Research Quality, Reviewer Expertise

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

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

Author Biography

Helmi Ben Saad, University of Sousse, Farhat Hached Hospital, Research Laboratory LR12SP09 «Heart failure», Sousse, Tunisia

  • Professor of Physiology and Functional Explorations at the Faculty of Medicine of Sousse - Tunisia, Department of Physiology and Functional Explorations at EPS Farhat HACHED - Sousse - Tunisia.
  • President of the College of Physiology and Functional Explorations (terms: 2014-2017; 2021-2023).
  • Master's degree in Biological and Medical Sciences from the University of Montpellier I, France.
  • World expert in spirometry (ranked 1st in Africa): https://expertscape.com/ex/spirometry/c/afr.
  • Diploma of Advanced Studies in "Human Movement Sciences" from the University of Montpellier I, France.
  • Interuniversity Diploma "Pathophysiology of Exercise and Functional Exercise Explorations" from the University of Montpellier 1, France.
  • International PhD in Sciences between the Universities of Montpellier I (France) and Monastir (Tunisia).
  • European Spirometry Driving License Part 1 (theory only) and the European Spirometry Training Program (Part 2: knowledge and competence in practice) and the European Spirometry train-the-trainer course.
  • Invited speaker at numerous international congresses on respiratory functional explorations.
  • Author of over 220 scientific articles in indexed and impact factor journals.
  • Potential reviewer for over 80 indexed and impact factor journals and potential external reviewer for the University of Cape Town (South Africa) and Mutah (Jordan).
  • Winner of the Sadok BESROUR Award for Excellence in Medical Research (2021).
  • Web:
  1. http://scholar.google.fr/citations?hl=fr&user=oeV_0OwAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmi_Ben_Saad
  2. https://publons.com/author/602231/helmi-ben-saad#profile
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmi_Ben_Saad

References

  1. Peters MA, Jandrić P, Irwin R, Locke K, Devine N, Heraud R, et al. Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educ Philos Theory. 2016;48(14):1401-25.
  2. Ben Saad H. Scientific medical writing in practice: the IMR@D(R) format. Tunis Med. 2019;97(3):407-25.
  3. Ben Saad H. Scientific medical writing in practice: How to succeed the writing style? Tunis Med. 2019;97(2):273-85.
  4. ICJME. International committee of medical journal editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medicaljournals. Responsibilities in the submission and peer-review process. ; 2023. Available via this URL: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. (Last visit: october 7, 2023).
  5. Double KS, McGrane JA, Hopfenbeck TN. The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educ Psychol Rev. 2019;32(2):481-509.
  6. Ali MJ, Djalilian A. Readership awareness series - Paper 6: How to write a good peer review report? Semin Ophthalmol. 2023;38(8):687-9.
  7. Ali MJ, Djalilian A. Readership awareness series - Paper 5: The peer review process. Semin Ophthalmol. 2023;38(7):599-601.
  8. Ellwanger JH, Chies JAB. We need to talk about peer-review-Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;125:201-5.
  9. Neumann N. Imperfect but important: a fellow's perspective on journal peer review. J Med Toxicol. 2020;16(1):1-2.
  10. Schulz R, Barnett A, Bernard R, Brown NJL, Byrne JA, Eckmann P, et al. Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):203.
  11. Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to reviewers' comments on submitted articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(2):105-7.
  12. Clark PC, Spratling R, Aycock DM, Marcus J. The real secret to getting published: Responding to reviewers. J Pediatr Health Care. 2023;37(5):570-4.
  13. Min SK. Critical tips on how to respond to peer reviewers. Vasc Specialist Int. 2022;38:8.
  14. Dergaa I, Saad H. Joining hands for better health: The inception of the New Asian journal of medicine. N Asian J Med. 2023;1(1):1-3.
  15. Kearney L, Cummins A, O'Connell M, Sweet L. Mastering the art of responding to peer review. Women Birth. 2023.
  16. LaDonna KA, Cowley L, Ananny L, Regehr G, Eva KW. When feedback is not perceived as feedback: Challenges for regulatory-body mandated peer review. Acad Med. 2023.
  17. Meyer-Junco L, Waldfogel JM, Duncan N. Peer review questions & answers: How? J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2023;37(3):209-12.
  18. Brandao AA. Some remarks on peer review and preprints. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2023;118:e230001.
  19. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Perez-Rios M, Rey-Brandariz J. The standard peer-review system needs to be reformulated towards a more efficient peer-review system. An Pediatr (Engl Ed). 2023;99(4):291-2.
  20. Remuzzi G. The ethics of peer review process. Updates Surg. 2023;75(6):1391-2.
  21. Beck S, Bergenholtz C, Bogers M, Brasseur T-M, Conradsen ML, Di Marco D, et al. The open innovation in science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach. Ind Innov. 2020;29(2):136-85.
  22. Khemiss M, Berrezouga L, Ben Khelifa M, Masmoudi T, Ben Saad H. Understanding of plagiarism among North-African university hospital doctors (UHDs): A pilot study. Account Res. 2019;26(2):65-84.
  23. Gorski A, Zimecki M, Krotkiewski H. Journal impact factor and self-citations. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2021;69(1):21.
  24. Dergaa I, Chamari K, Glenn JM, Ben Aissa M, Guelmami N, Ben Saad H. Towards responsible research: examining the need for preprint policy reassessment in the era of artificial intelligence. EXCLI J. 2023;22:686-9.
  25. Dergaa I, Chamari K, Zmijewski P, Ben Saad H. From human writing to artificial intelligence generated text: examining the prospects and potential threats of ChatGPT in academic writing. Biol Sport. 2023;40(2):615-22.
  26. Balaji SM. Risks and benefits of artificial intelligence for peer-review. Indian J Dent Res. 2023;34(1):1.
  27. COPE. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Hampshire: COPE council; 2017. Available via this URL: https://publication-ethics.org/resources/guide lines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers. (Last visit: october 7, 2023).
  28. Vercellini P, Buggio L, Vigano P, Somigliana E. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. Eur J Intern Med. 2016;31:15-9.
  29. No authors’ listed. There's a time to be critical. Nature. 2011;473(7347):253.
  30. Irfanullah H. Ending human-dependent peer review. Available via this URL: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/09/29/ending-human-dependent-peer-review/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email (Last visit: October 21, 2023).
  31. Dziri C, Fingerhut A. Should we accept systematically the text provided by ChatGPT or Perplexity? Tunis Med. 2023; 101 (3): 321-2.
  32. Dergaa I, Ben Saad H. Artificial intelligence and promoting open access in academic publishing. Tunis Med. 2023; 101(6): 533-6.