داوری همتا، بازنگری با دقت یا داوری دقیق (به انگلیسی: Peer review)، به روند بازنگری همهجانبهٔ مقالههای علمی توسط متخصصان همان رشته گفته میشود. متخصصان آن رشته، پژوهشهای دریافت شده را تجزیه تحلیل و یافتههای آن را بررسی مینمایند و به پرسشهای ویژهای که دیگر صاحبنظران، اعم از مسئولین مجله (معمولاً سر دبیران) و خوانندگان متخصص مطرح میکنند، پاسخ میدهند. سپس داوران همتا، نکتههای مفیدی در مورد میزان اهمیت و نو آوری و طرز ارائه نتایج و اعتبار آنها، رعایت اصول اخلاقی و سایر ویژگیهای مقالههایی که داوری مینمایند، مطرح میکنند. تا سالهای دهه نود، داوری همتا دقیقاً مورد مطالعه قرار نگرفته بود
برای اولین بار در ایران، میرزایی و همکاران (۱۳۸۵) واژه همترازخوانی را به عنوان معادل آن به کار بردند.
روند داوری همتا[ویرایش]
کس یا کسانی که به عنوان داور همتراز انتخاب میشوند، باید تا حد ممکن در زمینه علمی مربوط توانا و مجرب باشند و فاقد هرگونه تعارض منافع شناخته شده در زمینه مقاله مورد داوری باشند. در داوری همتا، داور باید به نقاط قوت و ضعف مقاله توجه کند و در صورت امکان راهکارهایی را برای رفع اشکالات موجود توصیه نماید. داوران همتا، انتظار دارند که مقاله ارائه شده مهم، دست اول و غیر تکراری بوده و به خوانندگانی که مجله را میخوانند مربوط و در عمل کاربردی باشد؛ همچنین راستگویی نویسنده، ساده و واضح نوشته شدن مقاله و جلب توجه خواننده هم از موارد مورد انتظار از مقالهاست. داوری همتا هم شامل داوری گروه داوران مجلههای معتبر علمی است (داوری درونی) و هم شامل داوری جامعه متخصصین آن علم (داوری بیرونی). داوران و نویسندگان تحقیق باید از برقراری ارتباط با یکدیگر (در رابطه با داوری) در طول فرایند داوری، بدون کسب اجازه از سردبیر مجله امتناع کنند. مجلههای معتبرتر، از داوران نمیخواهند که در مورد مقاله اظهار نظر کنند، بلکه تنها سؤال میکنند که این مقاله را منتشر بکنند یا خیر.
اشکالات داوری همتا[ویرایش]
این روند، وقتگیر، پرهزینه و مستعد به اشتباه است و ممکن است راه را برای سوءاستفاده باز کند و برای اینکه حدود معقولی از استناد پذیری وجود داشته باشد، حداقل شش داور همنظر مورد احتیاج هستند.
انواع داوری همتا[ویرایش]
بهصورت کلی سه دسته داوری همتا یا بازنگری دقیق وجود دارد که عبارتند از:
پیوند به بیرون[ویرایش]
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.
Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure. Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.
WA prototype is a professional peer-review process originally recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.
Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review. Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc. Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting, law, engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.
Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.
Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals, but it by no means prevents publication of invalid research. Meta-research has identified weaknesses in common peer review practices, leading critics to argue for reform. Researchers within the fields of metascience and journalology work to produce such reform.
A number of alternative peer review systems have been proposed to address known problems in the peer review process. Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there are several examples of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well, e.g., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.
The European Union has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy since 1999. In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion. Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.
The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.
Medical peer review may be distinguished in 4 classifications: 1) clinical peer review; 2) peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses; 3) scientific peer review of journal articles; 4) a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals. Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.
In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.
To an outsider, the anonymous, pre-publication peer review process is opaque. Certain journals are accused of not carrying out stringent peer review in order to more easily expand their customer base, particularly in journals where authors pay a fee before publication. Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has claimed that peer review is "ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review is biased against the provincial and those from low- and middle-income countries; Many journals take months and even years to publish and the process wastes researchers' time. As for the cost, the Research Information Network estimated the global cost of peer review at £1.9 billion in 2008."
In addition, Australia's Innovative Research Universities group (a coalition of seven comprehensive universities committed to inclusive excellence in teaching, learning and research in Australia) has found that "peer review disadvantages researchers in their early careers, when they rely on competitive grants to cover their salaries, and when unsuccessful funding applications often mark the end of a research idea".