Blog Posts

Peer Review Process: Why is it significant for scholarly publications?

Peer-Review Process: Why is it significant for scholarly publications?

Peer review is a vital process in scholarly publications whereby scientific experts evaluate a manuscript and recommend whether an author’s research is suitable for publication. Peer review process ensures that quality manuscripts advancing the knowledge in the medical field are published by the medical journals. Peer review process acts as controller in promoting relevant and good science.

A theory or a claim is usually not recognized by the scientific community unless published in a peer-reviewed journal. In addition, only peer-reviewed journals are considered eligible for Impact Factors by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI).

Peer review acts as facilitation to ensure that only high-quality research is published by determining the validity, novelty, significance, and originality of the study. It intends to improve the quality of manuscripts deemed suitable for publication.

The peer-review process acts as a guarantor in preventing a lot of bad science from making it to publication. Furthermore, as the reviewers are specialists in their fields and are up to date on the most recent advancements, their expertise ensures to veto duplicate research and plagiarized articles. Additionally, peer-reviewing enables a wide range of viewpoints to be presented, thereby eliminating personal and pre-conceived notions.

Peer review is a learning process where the authors, editors, and reviewers stand to gain from it as a learning experience, consequently leading to develop new ideas in the field. This learning experience adds aesthetic value to the scientific area of research, which is a challenging aspect to measure empirically.

Articles published in peer-reviewed sources are more reliable and of a higher standard than articles published in non–peer-reviewed sources. The peer-reviewed paper represents best practices in the field and is more authoritative as a source. Articles from top-tier journals are thus likely to be the best researched and most authoritative—ideal sources to utilize as the basis of one’s argument. Journal of clinical imaging science –, follows double blind peer review process. All journals published by Scientific Scholar, are peer reviewed.

Generally, Medical journals require at least two reviews to decide on the article’s acceptance for publication. Sometimes a third reviewer is required as an tie breaker. Different types of peer reviews; types and their main characteristics are given in the table below:

Types of Peer- Reviews Characteristics
Single-blind Authors don’t know the reviewers, while reviewers know who the authors are
Double-blind The identity of both reviewers and authors are blinded to each other.
Open peer review   Authors and reviewers know the identity of each other during or after the review process.
Transparent peer review The author’s identity is revealed, while the reviewer’s identity is disclosed based on their discretion.
Collaborative peer review Authors and reviewers interact/discuss with each other through a platform regarding the ways to improve the manuscript.


Editor in Chief

Journal of Clinical Imaging Science

Published by Scientific Scholar

If you are looking to start a new Journal or want to migrate your existing journal to Scientific Scholar publishers, please contact us at:

Read More

Read More


Systemic reviews published in the medical journals are highly read and sought after by the readers; however, about 7% of systematic reviews are inaccurate the day they are published. Currently, there is no provision to update these reviews periodically.

It has been suggested that these systemic reviews published by medical journals be periodically updated, such as at least once a month with the latest developments in the respective field. Since these reviews are UpToDate with the current research, these are called Living systemic reviews.

Once these reviews are updated, they are usually published online only with connotations showing the revision and the date it was revised.
Editors can choose to review them internally or get them checked through their peer review system. This depends on the amount of new information added to the manuscript.
The main burden of doing this fall on the authors, and they should be willing to do the needful.

One drawback of these Living, systemic reviews is that they can be Indexed once, and updated indexing is not possible continuously.

Written by
Editor in Chief, Journal of Clinical Imaging Science
Published by Scientific Scholar (

Read More

Read More


  1. It is a double-blind peer-reviewed international journal publishing the latest developments in Radiology and Imaging sciences. It’s published by Scientific Scholar (
  2. 30 % of our manuscripts come from the USA, and 18% come from India and the rest from other parts of the world.
  3. 248,749 Radiologists and Imaging specialists have visited the journal website from Jan 1st to sept 20th 2021-
  4. Our readership is 43.3% male and 56.7% female, and we receive manuscripts from 133 countries.
  5. In 2020 we received 389 manuscripts, of which 86 were accepted after rigorous peer -review and then published. The majority of the manuscripts are Original Research, followed by Review Articles. We do publish high-quality Case Reports that generate research ideas.
  6. To date, in 2021, we have had 177,139 full-text manuscript downloads from our journal website.
  7. The most viewed manuscript from the Journal of Clinical Imaging Science in 2021 is:
    Cardiopulmonary Imaging, Review Article: CO-RADS: Coronavirus Classification Review
    Full text | PDF | doi:10.25259/jcis_192_2020
  8. Before submitting your manuscript, please visit the author guidelines:
  9. For any questions or concerns, please write to

Read More

Read More


Request free consultation