Keywords: Research peer review, Asia, Medical education, Non-Anglophone authors


Peer reviewers are the custodians of sciences and scientific publishing. Previously regarded as a purely altruistic work, with the advent of Publons and Peer Review Week initiatives, reviewers can now get scholarly credits for their accomplishments. The number of skilled peer reviewers is limited. The sheer volume of published literature in today’s world calls for active involvement of a large corpus of reviewers. Asia has a growing workforce of biomedical researchers and scientific authors who are inadequately exposed to the global research reporting and English writing standards. Several global initiatives are underway to groom the next generation of peer reviewers and credit them for their efforts. These need to be expanded and made more accessible to scholars in Asia. Ultimately, this untapped potential may provide quality services to international peer-reviewed journals and create informed researchers and skilled authors.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


Gregory AT, Denniss AR. Everything you need to know about peer review — The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Heart Lung Circ 2019;28:1148–1153.

The Lancet. COVID-19: a stress test for trust in science. The Lancet 2020; 396(10254):799.

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010; 7(9):e1000326.

Glonti K, Cauchi D, Cobo E, et al. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals. BMC Med 2019; 17(1):118

Black N, Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? J Am Med Assoc 2015; 280(3):231–233.

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Papers Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2020; 328(7441):673.

Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30:360–364.

Yankauer A. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? JAMA J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:1338–1340.

Csiszar A. Peer review: troubled from the start. Nature 2016;532:306–308.

Misra D, Agarwal V. Blaming the peer reviewer: don’t shoot the messenger!! Indian J Rheumatol 2020; 15:162–164.

Ahmed S, Mohini. Building trust in journals and in peer review: need of the hour during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rheumatol Int. 2020.

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin Proc 2019;94:670–676.

Nylenna M, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA 1994;272:149–151.

Bruce R, Chauvin A, Trinquart L, et al. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med 2016;14:85.

Shen C, Björk B-C.‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13:230.

Mullan Z. Recognition for peer review. Lancet Glob. Health 2016;4:e784.

Zaharie MA, Seeber M. Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics 2018;117:1587–1609.

Goswami R. Don’t pull punches in peer review. Nature 2019; 574:176–176.

Callaway E. Open peer review finds more takers. Nat News 2016;539:343.

Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, et al. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nat Commun 2019;10(1):322.

Johansson MA, Saderi D. Open peer-review platform for COVID-19 preprints. Nature 2020; 579:29.

Sidalak D, Purdy E, Luckett-Gatopoulos S, et al. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2017;92:201–204.

Ahmed S, Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19. Clin Rheumatol 2020; 39(11):3215-3222.

Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422–428.

Sutherland WJ, Lythgoe KA. Coronavirus: full peer review in hours. Nature 2020;584:192.