peer reviewed research sources

University Library

Peer Review: An Introduction: Where to Find Peer Reviewed Sources

• Why not just use Google or Wikipedia?
• Where to Find Peer Reviewed Sources
• Where to Get More Help

Need More Help?

Have more questions? Contact Scholarly Communication and Publishing at [email protected]   for more information and guidance.

Ask a Librarian

The Ask a Librarian service for general reference is available during all of the hours when the Main Library is open. Visit the  Ask a Librarian  page to chat with a librarian.

Why is it so hard to find Peer-Reviewed Sources?

It isn't hard to find peer-reviewed sources: you just need to know where to look!  If you start in the right place, you can usually find a relevant, peer-reviewed source for your research in as few clicks as a Google search, and you can even use many of the search techniques you use in Google and Wikipedia.

The easiest way to find a peer-reviewed article is by using one of the Library's numerous databases. All of the Library's databases are listed in the Online Journals and Databases index. The databases are divided by name and discipline.

Departmental libraries and library subject guides have created subject-focused lists of electronic and print research resources that are useful for their disciplines. You can search the library directory  for links to the departmental libraries at the University of Illinois Library, or search library websites by college  if you're not sure which departmental library serves your subject.

Peer-Reviewed Resources for Disciplinary Topics

There are numerous print and digital resources for specific disciplines, areas of study, and specialist fields.  To find research resources and databases for your area, consult the comprehensive directory of LibGuides , the websites of specialist libraries, and above all, contact a librarian for help !

Here are a few major databases for finding peer-reviewed research sources in the humanities, social sciences, and sciences:

• MLA International Bibliography This link opens in a new window Indexes critical materials on literature, languages, linguistics, and folklore. Proved access to citations from worldwide publications, including periodicals, books, essay collections, working papers, proceedings, dissertations and bibliographies. Use MLA International Bibliography in the NEW EBSCO user interface . more... less... Alternate Access Link
• Web of Science (Core Collection) This link opens in a new window Web of Science indexes core journal articles, conference proceedings, data sets, and other resources in the sciences, social sciences, arts, and humanities.

A scholarly, multidisciplinary database providing indexing and abstracts for over 10,000 publications, including monographs, reports, conference proceedings, and others. Also includes full-text access to over 5,000 journals. Offers coverage of many areas of academic study including: archaeology, area studies, astronomy, biology, chemistry, civil engineering, electrical engineering, ethnic & multicultural studies, food science & technology, general science, geography, geology, law, mathematics, mechanical engineering, music, physics, psychology, religion & theology, women's studies, and other fields. 

Alternate Access Link  

• IEEE Xplore This link opens in a new window Provides full-text access to IEEE transactions, IEEE and IEE journals, magazines, and conference proceedings published since 1988, and all current IEEE standards; brings additional search and access features to IEEE/IEE digital library users. Browsable by books & e-books, conference publications, education and learning, journals and magazines, standards and by topic. Also provides links to IEEE standards, IEEE spectrum and other sites.
• Scopus This link opens in a new window Scopus is the largest abstract and citation database including peer-reviewed titles from international publishers, Open Access journals, conference proceedings, trade publications and quality web sources. Subject coverage includes: Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics and Engineering; Life and Health Sciences; Social Sciences, Psychology and Economics; Biological, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.
• Business Source Ultimate This link opens in a new window Provides bibliographic and full text content, including indexing and abstracts for scholarly business journals back as far as 1886 and full text journal articles in all disciplines of business, including marketing, management, MIS, POM, accounting, finance and economics. The database full text content includes financial data, books, monographs, major reference works, book digests, conference proceedings, case studies, investment research reports, industry reports, market research reports, country reports, company profiles, SWOT analyses and more. Use Business Source Ultimate in the NEW EBSCO user interface . more... less... Alternate Access Link
• << Previous: Why not just use Google or Wikipedia?
• Next: Where to Get More Help >>
• Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 1:47 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.illinois.edu/peerreview

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of The Streets are Talking: Public Forms of Creative Expression from Around the World
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on December 17, 2021 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Peer review, sometimes referred to as refereeing , is the process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Using strict criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decides whether to accept each submission for publication.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to the stringent process they go through before publication.

There are various types of peer review. The main difference between them is to what extent the authors, reviewers, and editors know each other’s identities. The most common types are:

• Single-blind review
• Double-blind review
• Triple-blind review

Collaborative review

Open review.

Relatedly, peer assessment is a process where your peers provide you with feedback on something you’ve written, based on a set of criteria or benchmarks from an instructor. They then give constructive feedback, compliments, or guidance to help you improve your draft.

Table of contents

What is the purpose of peer review, types of peer review, the peer review process, providing feedback to your peers, peer review example, advantages of peer review, criticisms of peer review, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about peer reviews.

Many academic fields use peer review, largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the manuscript. For this reason, academic journals are among the most credible sources you can refer to.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Depending on the journal, there are several types of peer review.

Single-blind peer review

The most common type of peer review is single-blind (or single anonymized) review . Here, the names of the reviewers are not known by the author.

While this gives the reviewers the ability to give feedback without the possibility of interference from the author, there has been substantial criticism of this method in the last few years. Many argue that single-blind reviewing can lead to poaching or intellectual theft or that anonymized comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymized) review , both the author and the reviewers are anonymous.

Arguments for double-blind review highlight that this mitigates any risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer, while protecting the nature of the process. In theory, it also leads to manuscripts being published on merit rather than on the reputation of the author.

Triple-blind peer review

While triple-blind (or triple anonymized) review —where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymized—does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimizes potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymize everyone involved in the process.

In collaborative review , authors and reviewers interact with each other directly throughout the process. However, the identity of the reviewer is not known to the author. This gives all parties the opportunity to resolve any inconsistencies or contradictions in real time, and provides them a rich forum for discussion. It can mitigate the need for multiple rounds of editing and minimize back-and-forth.

Collaborative review can be time- and resource-intensive for the journal, however. For these collaborations to occur, there has to be a set system in place, often a technological platform, with staff monitoring and fixing any bugs or glitches.

Lastly, in open review , all parties know each other’s identities throughout the process. Often, open review can also include feedback from a larger audience, such as an online forum, or reviewer feedback included as part of the final published product.

While many argue that greater transparency prevents plagiarism or unnecessary harshness, there is also concern about the quality of future scholarship if reviewers feel they have to censor their comments.

In general, the peer review process includes the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to the author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

In an effort to be transparent, many journals are now disclosing who reviewed each article in the published product. There are also increasing opportunities for collaboration and feedback, with some journals allowing open communication between reviewers and authors.

It can seem daunting at first to conduct a peer review or peer assessment. If you’re not sure where to start, there are several best practices you can use.

Summarize the argument in your own words

Summarizing the main argument helps the author see how their argument is interpreted by readers, and gives you a jumping-off point for providing feedback. If you’re having trouble doing this, it’s a sign that the argument needs to be clearer, more concise, or worded differently.

If the author sees that you’ve interpreted their argument differently than they intended, they have an opportunity to address any misunderstandings when they get the manuscript back.

Separate your feedback into major and minor issues

It can be challenging to keep feedback organized. One strategy is to start out with any major issues and then flow into the more minor points. It’s often helpful to keep your feedback in a numbered list, so the author has concrete points to refer back to.

Major issues typically consist of any problems with the style, flow, or key points of the manuscript. Minor issues include spelling errors, citation errors, or other smaller, easy-to-apply feedback.

Tip: Try not to focus too much on the minor issues. If the manuscript has a lot of typos, consider making a note that the author should address spelling and grammar issues, rather than going through and fixing each one.

The best feedback you can provide is anything that helps them strengthen their argument or resolve major stylistic issues.

Give the type of feedback that you would like to receive

No one likes being criticized, and it can be difficult to give honest feedback without sounding overly harsh or critical. One strategy you can use here is the “compliment sandwich,” where you “sandwich” your constructive criticism between two compliments.

Be sure you are giving concrete, actionable feedback that will help the author submit a successful final draft. While you shouldn’t tell them exactly what they should do, your feedback should help them resolve any issues they may have overlooked.

As a rule of thumb, your feedback should be:

• Easy to understand
• Constructive

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Below is a brief annotated research example. You can view examples of peer feedback by hovering over the highlighted sections.

Influence of phone use on sleep

Studies show that teens from the US are getting less sleep than they were a decade ago (Johnson, 2019) . On average, teens only slept for 6 hours a night in 2021, compared to 8 hours a night in 2011. Johnson mentions several potential causes, such as increased anxiety, changed diets, and increased phone use.

The current study focuses on the effect phone use before bedtime has on the number of hours of sleep teens are getting.

For this study, a sample of 300 teens was recruited using social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. The first week, all teens were allowed to use their phone the way they normally would, in order to obtain a baseline.

The sample was then divided into 3 groups:

• Group 1 was not allowed to use their phone before bedtime.
• Group 2 used their phone for 1 hour before bedtime.
• Group 3 used their phone for 3 hours before bedtime.

All participants were asked to go to sleep around 10 p.m. to control for variation in bedtime . In the morning, their Fitbit showed the number of hours they’d slept. They kept track of these numbers themselves for 1 week.

Two independent t tests were used in order to compare Group 1 and Group 2, and Group 1 and Group 3. The first t test showed no significant difference ( p > .05) between the number of hours for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 2 ( M = 7.0, SD = 0.8). The second t test showed a significant difference ( p < .01) between the average difference for Group 1 ( M = 7.8, SD = 0.6) and Group 3 ( M = 6.1, SD = 1.5).

This shows that teens sleep fewer hours a night if they use their phone for over an hour before bedtime, compared to teens who use their phone for 0 to 1 hours.

Peer review is an established and hallowed process in academia, dating back hundreds of years. It provides various fields of study with metrics, expectations, and guidance to ensure published work is consistent with predetermined standards.

• Protects the quality of published research

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. Any content that raises red flags for reviewers can be closely examined in the review stage, preventing plagiarized or duplicated research from being published.

• Gives you access to feedback from experts in your field

Peer review represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field and to improve your writing through their feedback and guidance. Experts with knowledge about your subject matter can give you feedback on both style and content, and they may also suggest avenues for further research that you hadn’t yet considered.

• Helps you identify any weaknesses in your argument

Peer review acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process. This way, you’ll end up with a more robust, more cohesive article.

While peer review is a widely accepted metric for credibility, it’s not without its drawbacks.

• Reviewer bias

The more transparent double-blind system is not yet very common, which can lead to bias in reviewing. A common criticism is that an excellent paper by a new researcher may be declined, while an objectively lower-quality submission by an established researcher would be accepted.

• Delays in publication

The thoroughness of the peer review process can lead to significant delays in publishing time. Research that was current at the time of submission may not be as current by the time it’s published. There is also high risk of publication bias , where journals are more likely to publish studies with positive findings than studies with negative findings.

• Risk of human error

By its very nature, peer review carries a risk of human error. In particular, falsification often cannot be detected, given that reviewers would have to replicate entire experiments to ensure the validity of results.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Discourse analysis
• Cohort study
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilizing rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication. For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project– provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well-regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps: 

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or 
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s) 
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made. 
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field. It acts as a first defense, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure. 

A credible source should pass the CRAAP test  and follow these guidelines:

• The information should be up to date and current.
• The author and publication should be a trusted authority on the subject you are researching.
• The sources the author cited should be easy to find, clear, and unbiased.
• For a web source, the URL and layout should signify that it is trustworthy.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what are credible sources & how to spot them | examples, ethical considerations in research | types & examples, applying the craap test & evaluating sources, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Reumatologia
• v.59(1); 2021

Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers

Olena zimba.

1 Department of Internal Medicine No. 2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.

Introduction

The peer review process is essential for evaluating the quality of scholarly works, suggesting corrections, and learning from other authors’ mistakes. The principles of peer review are largely based on professionalism, eloquence, and collegiate attitude. As such, reviewing journal submissions is a privilege and responsibility for ‘elite’ research fellows who contribute to their professional societies and add value by voluntarily sharing their knowledge and experience.

Since the launch of the first academic periodicals back in 1665, the peer review has been mandatory for validating scientific facts, selecting influential works, and minimizing chances of publishing erroneous research reports [ 1 ]. Over the past centuries, peer review models have evolved from single-handed editorial evaluations to collegial discussions, with numerous strengths and inevitable limitations of each practised model [ 2 , 3 ]. With multiplication of periodicals and editorial management platforms, the reviewer pool has expanded and internationalized. Various sets of rules have been proposed to select skilled reviewers and employ globally acceptable tools and language styles [ 4 , 5 ].

In the era of digitization, the ethical dimension of the peer review has emerged, necessitating involvement of peers with full understanding of research and publication ethics to exclude unethical articles from the pool of evidence-based research and reviews [ 6 ]. In the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, some, if not most, journals face the unavailability of skilled reviewers, resulting in an unprecedented increase of articles without a history of peer review or those with surprisingly short evaluation timelines [ 7 ].

Editorial recommendations and the best reviewers

Guidance on peer review and selection of reviewers is currently available in the recommendations of global editorial associations which can be consulted by journal editors for updating their ethics statements and by research managers for crediting the evaluators. The International Committee on Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) qualifies peer review as a continuation of the scientific process that should involve experts who are able to timely respond to reviewer invitations, submitting unbiased and constructive comments, and keeping confidentiality [ 8 ].

The reviewer roles and responsibilities are listed in the updated recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (CSE) [ 9 ] where ethical conduct is viewed as a premise of the quality evaluations. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) further emphasizes editorial strategies that ensure transparent and unbiased reviewer evaluations by trained professionals [ 10 ]. Finally, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) prioritizes selecting the best reviewers with validated profiles to avoid substandard or fraudulent reviewer comments [ 11 ]. Accordingly, the Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications encourages reviewers to register with the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) platform to validate and publicize their scholarly activities [ 12 ].

Although the best reviewer criteria are not listed in the editorial recommendations, it is apparent that the manuscript evaluators should be active researchers with extensive experience in the subject matter and an impressive list of relevant and recent publications [ 13 ]. All authors embarking on an academic career and publishing articles with active contact details can be involved in the evaluation of others’ scholarly works [ 14 ]. Ideally, the reviewers should be peers of the manuscript authors with equal scholarly ranks and credentials.

However, journal editors may employ schemes that engage junior research fellows as co-reviewers along with their mentors and senior fellows [ 15 ]. Such a scheme is successfully practised within the framework of the Emerging EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) Network (EMEUNET) where seasoned authors (mentors) train ongoing researchers (mentees) how to evaluate submissions to the top rheumatology journals and select the best evaluators for regular contributors to these journals [ 16 ].

The awareness of the EQUATOR Network reporting standards may help the reviewers to evaluate methodology and suggest related revisions. Statistical skills help the reviewers to detect basic mistakes and suggest additional analyses. For example, scanning data presentation and revealing mistakes in the presentation of means and standard deviations often prompt re-analyses of distributions and replacement of parametric tests with non-parametric ones [ 17 , 18 ].

Constructive reviewer comments

The main goal of the peer review is to support authors in their attempt to publish ethically sound and professionally validated works that may attract readers’ attention and positively influence healthcare research and practice. As such, an optimal reviewer comment has to comprehensively examine all parts of the research and review work ( Table I ). The best reviewers are viewed as contributors who guide authors on how to correct mistakes, discuss study limitations, and highlight its strengths [ 19 ].

Structure of a reviewer comment to be forwarded to authors

Some of the currently practised review models are well positioned to help authors reveal and correct their mistakes at pre- or post-publication stages ( Table II ). The global move toward open science is particularly instrumental for increasing the quality and transparency of reviewer contributions.

Advantages and disadvantages of common manuscript evaluation models

Since there are no universally acceptable criteria for selecting reviewers and structuring their comments, instructions of all peer-reviewed journal should specify priorities, models, and expected review outcomes [ 20 ]. Monitoring and reporting average peer review timelines is also required to encourage timely evaluations and avoid delays. Depending on journal policies and article types, the first round of peer review may last from a few days to a few weeks. The fast-track review (up to 3 days) is practised by some top journals which process clinical trial reports and other priority items.

In exceptional cases, reviewer contributions may result in substantive changes, appreciated by authors in the official acknowledgments. In most cases, however, reviewers should avoid engaging in the authors’ research and writing. They should refrain from instructing the authors on additional tests and data collection as these may delay publication of original submissions with conclusive results.

Established publishers often employ advanced editorial management systems that support reviewers by providing instantaneous access to the review instructions, online structured forms, and some bibliographic databases. Such support enables drafting of evidence-based comments that examine the novelty, ethical soundness, and implications of the reviewed manuscripts [ 21 ].

Encouraging reviewers to submit their recommendations on manuscript acceptance/rejection and related editorial tasks is now a common practice. Skilled reviewers may prompt the editors to reject or transfer manuscripts which fall outside the journal scope, perform additional ethics checks, and minimize chances of publishing erroneous and unethical articles. They may also raise concerns over the editorial strategies in their comments to the editors.

Since reviewer and editor roles are distinct, reviewer recommendations are aimed at helping editors, but not at replacing their decision-making functions. The final decisions rest with handling editors. Handling editors weigh not only reviewer comments, but also priorities related to article types and geographic origins, space limitations in certain periods, and envisaged influence in terms of social media attention and citations. This is why rejections of even flawless manuscripts are likely at early rounds of internal and external evaluations across most peer-reviewed journals.

Reviewers are often requested to comment on language correctness and overall readability of the evaluated manuscripts. Given the wide availability of in-house and external editing services, reviewer comments on language mistakes and typos are categorized as minor. At the same time, non-Anglophone experts’ poor language skills often exclude them from contributing to the peer review in most influential journals [ 22 ]. Comments should be properly edited to convey messages in positive or neutral tones, express ideas of varying degrees of certainty, and present logical order of words, sentences, and paragraphs [ 23 , 24 ]. Consulting linguists on communication culture, passing advanced language courses, and honing commenting skills may increase the overall quality and appeal of the reviewer accomplishments [ 5 , 25 ].

Peer reviewer credits

Various crediting mechanisms have been proposed to motivate reviewers and maintain the integrity of science communication [ 26 ]. Annual reviewer acknowledgments are widely practised for naming manuscript evaluators and appreciating their scholarly contributions. Given the need to weigh reviewer contributions, some journal editors distinguish ‘elite’ reviewers with numerous evaluations and award those with timely and outstanding accomplishments [ 27 ]. Such targeted recognition ensures ethical soundness of the peer review and facilitates promotion of the best candidates for grant funding and academic job appointments [ 28 ].

Also, large publishers and learned societies issue certificates of excellence in reviewing which may include Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points [ 29 ]. Finally, an entirely new crediting mechanism is proposed to award bonus points to active reviewers who may collect, transfer, and use these points to discount gold open-access charges within the publisher consortia [ 30 ].

With the launch of Publons ( http://publons.com/ ) and its integration with Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), reviewer recognition has become a matter of scientific prestige. Reviewers can now freely open their Publons accounts and record their contributions to online journals with Digital Object Identifiers (DOI). Journal editors, in turn, may generate official reviewer acknowledgments and encourage reviewers to forward them to Publons for building up individual reviewer and journal profiles. All published articles maintain e-links to their review records and post-publication promotion on social media, allowing the reviewers to continuously track expert evaluations and comments. A paid-up partnership is also available to journals and publishers for automatically transferring peer-review records to Publons upon mutually acceptable arrangements.

Listing reviewer accomplishments on an individual Publons profile showcases scholarly contributions of the account holder. The reviewer accomplishments placed next to the account holders’ own articles and editorial accomplishments point to the diversity of scholarly contributions. Researchers may establish links between their Publons and ORCID accounts to further benefit from complementary services of both platforms. Publons Academy ( https://publons.com/community/academy/ ) additionally offers an online training course to novice researchers who may improve their reviewing skills under the guidance of experienced mentors and journal editors. Finally, journal editors may conduct searches through the Publons platform to select the best reviewers across academic disciplines.

Peer review ethics

Prior to accepting reviewer invitations, scholars need to weigh a number of factors which may compromise their evaluations. First of all, they are required to accept the reviewer invitations if they are capable of timely submitting their comments. Peer review timelines depend on article type and vary widely across journals. The rules of transparent publishing necessitate recording manuscript submission and acceptance dates in article footnotes to inform readers of the evaluation speed and to help investigators in the event of multiple unethical submissions. Timely reviewer accomplishments often enable fast publication of valuable works with positive implications for healthcare. Unjustifiably long peer review, on the contrary, delays dissemination of influential reports and results in ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism of a manuscript under evaluation [ 31 ].

In the times of proliferation of open-access journals relying on article processing charges, unjustifiably short review may point to the absence of quality evaluation and apparently ‘predatory’ publishing practice [ 32 , 33 ]. Authors when choosing their target journals should take into account the peer review strategy and associated timelines to avoid substandard periodicals.

Reviewer primary interests (unbiased evaluation of manuscripts) may come into conflict with secondary interests (promotion of their own scholarly works), necessitating disclosures by filling in related parts in the online reviewer window or uploading the ICMJE conflict of interest forms. Biomedical reviewers, who are directly or indirectly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, may encounter conflicts while evaluating drug research. Such instances require explicit disclosures of conflicts and/or rejections of reviewer invitations.

Journal editors are obliged to employ mechanisms for disclosing reviewer financial and non-financial conflicts of interest to avoid processing of biased comments [ 34 ]. They should also cautiously process negative comments that oppose dissenting, but still valid, scientific ideas [ 35 ]. Reviewer conflicts that stem from academic activities in a competitive environment may introduce biases, resulting in unfair rejections of manuscripts with opposing concepts, results, and interpretations. The same academic conflicts may lead to coercive reviewer self-citations, forcing authors to incorporate suggested reviewer references or face negative feedback and an unjustified rejection [ 36 ]. Notably, several publisher investigations have demonstrated a global scale of such misconduct, involving some highly cited researchers and top scientific journals [ 37 ].

Fake peer review, an extreme example of conflict of interest, is another form of misconduct that has surfaced in the time of mass proliferation of gold open-access journals and publication of articles without quality checks [ 38 ]. Fake reviews are generated by manipulating authors and commercial editing agencies with full access to their own manuscripts and peer review evaluations in the journal editorial management systems. The sole aim of these reviews is to break the manuscript evaluation process and to pave the way for publication of pseudoscientific articles. Authors of these articles are often supported by funds intended for the growth of science in non-Anglophone countries [ 39 ]. Iranian and Chinese authors are often caught submitting fake reviews, resulting in mass retractions by large publishers [ 38 ]. Several suggestions have been made to overcome this issue, with assigning independent reviewers and requesting their ORCID IDs viewed as the most practical options [ 40 ].

Conclusions

The peer review process is regulated by publishers and editors, enforcing updated global editorial recommendations. Selecting the best reviewers and providing authors with constructive comments may improve the quality of published articles. Reviewers are selected in view of their professional backgrounds and skills in research reporting, statistics, ethics, and language. Quality reviewer comments attract superior submissions and add to the journal’s scientific prestige [ 41 ].

In the era of digitization and open science, various online tools and platforms are available to upgrade the peer review and credit experts for their scholarly contributions. With its links to the ORCID platform and social media channels, Publons now offers the optimal model for crediting and keeping track of the best and most active reviewers. Publons Academy additionally offers online training for novice researchers who may benefit from the experience of their mentoring editors. Overall, reviewer training in how to evaluate journal submissions and avoid related misconduct is an important process, which some indexed journals are experimenting with [ 42 ].

The timelines and rigour of the peer review may change during the current pandemic. However, journal editors should mobilize their resources to avoid publication of unchecked and misleading reports. Additional efforts are required to monitor published contents and encourage readers to post their comments on publishers’ online platforms (blogs) and other social media channels [ 43 , 44 ].

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

We apologize for any inconvenience as we update our site to a new look.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Evaluating Resources: Peer Review

What is peer review.

The term peer review can be confusing, since in some of your courses you may be asked to review the work of your peers. When we talk about peer-reviewed journal articles, this has nothing to do with your peers!

Peer-reviewed journals, also called refereed journals, are journals that use a specific scholarly review process to try to ensure the accuracy and reliability of published articles. When an article is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication, the journal sends the article to other scholars/experts in that field and has them review the article for accuracy and reliability.

Find out more about peer review with our Peer Review Guide:

• Peer Review Guide

Types of peer review

Single blind.

In this process, the names of the reviewers are not known to the author(s). The reviewers do know the name of the author(s).

Double blind

Here, neither reviewers or authors know each other's names.

In the open review process, both reviewers and authors know each other's names.

What about editorial review?

Journals also use an editorial review process. This is not the same as peer review. In an editorial review process an article is evaluated for style guidelines and for clarity. Reviewers here do not look at technical accuracy or errors in data or methodology, but instead look at grammar, style, and whether an article is well written.

What is the difference between scholarly and peer review?

Not all scholarly journals are peer reviewed, but all peer-reviewed journals are scholarly.

• Things that are written for a scholarly or academic audience are considered scholarly writing.
• Peer-reviewed journals are a part of the larger category of scholarly writing.
• Scholarly writing includes many resources that are not peer reviewed, such as books, textbooks, and dissertations.

Scholarly writing does not come with a label that says scholarly . You will need to evaluate the resource to see if it is

• aimed at a scholarly audience
• reporting research, theories or other types of information important to scholars
• documenting and citing sources used to help authenticate the research done

The standard peer review process only applies to journals. While scholarly writing has certainly been edited and reviewed, peer review is a specific process only used by peer-reviewed journals. Books and dissertations may be scholarly, but are not considered peer reviewed.

Check out Select the Right Source for help with what kinds of resources are appropriate for discussion posts, assignments, projects, and more:

• Select the Right Source

How do I locate or verify peer-reviewed articles?

The peer review process is initiated by the journal publisher before an article is even published. Nowhere in the article will it tell you whether or not the article has gone through a peer review process.

You can locate peer-reviewed articles in the Library databases, typically by checking a limiter box.

• Quick Answer: How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles?

You can verify whether a journal uses a peer review process by using Ulrich's Periodicals Directory.

• Quick Answer: How do I verify that my article is peer reviewed?

What about resources that are not peer-reviewed?

Limiting your search to peer review is a way that you can ensure that you're looking at scholarly journal articles, and not popular or trade publications. Because peer-reviewed articles have been vetted by experts in the field, they are viewed as being held to a higher standard, and therefore are considered to be a high quality source. Professors often prefer peer-reviewed articles because they are considered to be of higher quality.

There are times, though, when the information you need may not be available in a peer-reviewed article.

• You may need to find original work on a theory that was first published in a book.
• You may need to find very current statistical data that comes from a government website.
• You may need background information that comes from a scholarly encyclopedia.

You will want to evaluate these resources to make sure that they are the best source for the information you need.

Note: If you are required for an assignment to find information from a peer-reviewed journal, then you will not be able to use non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, dissertations, or government websites. It's always best to clarify any questions over assignments with your professor.

• Previous Page: Evaluation Methods
• Next Page: Primary & Secondary Sources
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Finding Scholarly Articles: Home

What's a Scholarly Article?

Your professor has specified that you are to use scholarly (or primary research or peer-reviewed or refereed or academic) articles only in your paper. What does that mean?

Scholarly or primary research articles are peer-reviewed , which means that they have gone through the process of being read by reviewers or referees  before being accepted for publication. When a scholar submits an article to a scholarly journal, the manuscript is sent to experts in that field to read and decide if the research is valid and the article should be published. Typically the reviewers indicate to the journal editors whether they think the article should be accepted, sent back for revisions, or rejected.

To decide whether an article is a primary research article, look for the following:

• The author’s (or authors') credentials and academic affiliation(s) should be given;
• There should be an abstract summarizing the research;
• The methods and materials used should be given, often in a separate section;
• There are citations within the text or footnotes referencing sources used;
• Results of the research are given;
• There should be discussion   and  conclusion ;
• With a bibliography or list of references at the end.

Caution: even though a journal may be peer-reviewed, not all the items in it will be. For instance, there might be editorials, book reviews, news reports, etc. Check for the parts of the article to be sure.   

You can limit your search results to primary research, peer-reviewed or refereed articles in many databases. To search for scholarly articles in  HOLLIS , type your keywords in the box at the top, and select  Catalog&Articles  from the choices that appear next.   On the search results screen, look for the  Show Only section on the right and click on  Peer-reviewed articles . (Make sure to  login in with your HarvardKey to get full-text of the articles that Harvard has purchased.)

Many of the databases that Harvard offers have similar features to limit to peer-reviewed or scholarly articles.  For example in Academic Search Premier , click on the box for Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals  on the search screen.

Review articles are another great way to find scholarly primary research articles.   Review articles are not considered "primary research", but they pull together primary research articles on a topic, summarize and analyze them.  In Google Scholar , click on Review Articles  at the left of the search results screen. Ask your professor whether review articles can be cited for an assignment.

A note about Google searching.  A regular Google search turns up a broad variety of results, which can include scholarly articles but Google results also contain commercial and popular sources which may be misleading, outdated, etc.  Use Google Scholar  through the Harvard Library instead.

About Wikipedia .  W ikipedia is not considered scholarly, and should not be cited, but it frequently includes references to scholarly articles. Before using those references for an assignment, double check by finding them in Hollis or a more specific subject  database .

Still not sure about a source? Consult the course syllabus for guidance, contact your professor or teaching fellow, or use the Ask A Librarian service.

• Last Updated: Oct 3, 2023 3:37 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/FindingScholarlyArticles

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

• Science Notes Posts
• Contact Science Notes
• Todd Helmenstine Biography
• Anne Helmenstine Biography
• Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
• Periodic Table Wallpapers
• Interactive Periodic Table
• Periodic Table Posters
• Science Experiments for Kids
• How to Grow Crystals
• Chemistry Projects
• Fire and Flames Projects
• Holiday Science
• Chemistry Problems With Answers
• Physics Problems
• Unit Conversion Example Problems
• Chemistry Worksheets
• Biology Worksheets
• Periodic Table Worksheets
• Physical Science Worksheets
• Science Lab Worksheets
• My Amazon Books

Understanding Peer Review in Science

Peer review is an essential element of the scientific publishing process that helps ensure that research articles are evaluated, critiqued, and improved before release into the academic community. Take a look at the significance of peer review in scientific publications, the typical steps of the process, and and how to approach peer review if you are asked to assess a manuscript.

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is the evaluation of work by peers, who are people with comparable experience and competency. Peers assess each others’ work in educational settings, in professional settings, and in the publishing world. The goal of peer review is improving quality, defining and maintaining standards, and helping people learn from one another.

In the context of scientific publication, peer review helps editors determine which submissions merit publication and improves the quality of manuscripts prior to their final release.

Types of Peer Review for Manuscripts

There are three main types of peer review:

• Single-blind review: The reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
• Double-blind review: Both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
• Open peer review: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are disclosed, promoting transparency and collaboration.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each method. Anonymous reviews reduce bias but reduce collaboration, while open reviews are more transparent, but increase bias.

Key Elements of Peer Review

Proper selection of a peer group improves the outcome of the process:

• Expertise : Reviewers should possess adequate knowledge and experience in the relevant field to provide constructive feedback.
• Objectivity : Reviewers assess the manuscript impartially and without personal bias.
• Confidentiality : The peer review process maintains confidentiality to protect intellectual property and encourage honest feedback.
• Timeliness : Reviewers provide feedback within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely publication.

Steps of the Peer Review Process

The typical peer review process for scientific publications involves the following steps:

• Submission : Authors submit their manuscript to a journal that aligns with their research topic.
• Editorial assessment : The journal editor examines the manuscript and determines whether or not it is suitable for publication. If it is not, the manuscript is rejected.
• Peer review : If it is suitable, the editor sends the article to peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
• Reviewer feedback : Reviewers provide feedback, critique, and suggestions for improvement.
• Revision and resubmission : Authors address the feedback and make necessary revisions before resubmitting the manuscript.
• Final decision : The editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewer comments.
• Publication : If accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal.

Pros and Cons

While the goal of peer review is improving the quality of published research, the process isn’t without its drawbacks.

• Quality assurance : Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of published research.
• Error detection : The process identifies errors and flaws that the authors may have overlooked.
• Credibility : The scientific community generally considers peer-reviewed articles to be more credible.
• Professional development : Reviewers can learn from the work of others and enhance their own knowledge and understanding.
• Time-consuming : The peer review process can be lengthy, delaying the publication of potentially valuable research.
• Bias : Personal biases of reviews impact their evaluation of the manuscript.
• Inconsistency : Different reviewers may provide conflicting feedback, making it challenging for authors to address all concerns.
• Limited effectiveness : Peer review does not always detect significant errors or misconduct.
• Poaching : Some reviewers take an idea from a submission and gain publication before the authors of the original research.

Steps for Conducting Peer Review of an Article

Generally, an editor provides guidance when you are asked to provide peer review of a manuscript. Here are typical steps of the process.

• Accept the right assignment: Accept invitations to review articles that align with your area of expertise to ensure you can provide well-informed feedback.
• Manage your time: Allocate sufficient time to thoroughly read and evaluate the manuscript, while adhering to the journal’s deadline for providing feedback.
• Read the manuscript multiple times: First, read the manuscript for an overall understanding of the research. Then, read it more closely to assess the details, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Evaluate the structure and organization: Check if the manuscript follows the journal’s guidelines and is structured logically, with clear headings, subheadings, and a coherent flow of information.
• Assess the quality of the research: Evaluate the research question, study design, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Consider whether the methods are appropriate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are supported by the data.
• Examine the originality and relevance: Determine if the research offers new insights, builds on existing knowledge, and is relevant to the field.
• Check for clarity and consistency: Review the manuscript for clarity of writing, consistent terminology, and proper formatting of figures, tables, and references.
• Identify ethical issues: Look for potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.
• Provide constructive feedback: Offer specific, actionable, and objective suggestions for improvement, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Don’t be mean.
• Organize your review: Structure your review with an overview of your evaluation, followed by detailed comments and suggestions organized by section (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion).
• Be professional and respectful: Maintain a respectful tone in your feedback, avoiding personal criticism or derogatory language.
• Proofread your review: Before submitting your review, proofread it for typos, grammar, and clarity.
• Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). “Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study”. Science . 341 (6152): 1331. doi: 10.1126/science.341.6152.1331
• Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). “Bias in peer review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1): 2–17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
• Slavov, Nikolai (2015). “Making the most of peer review”. eLife . 4: e12708. doi: 10.7554/eLife.12708
• Spier, Ray (2002). “The history of the peer-review process”. Trends in Biotechnology . 20 (8): 357–8. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
• Squazzoni, Flaminio; Brezis, Elise; Marušić, Ana (2017). “Scientometrics of peer review”. Scientometrics . 113 (1): 501–502. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4

Related Posts

• How to Research
• Develop a Topic
• Find Information
• Peer-Reviewed Sources
• Database Tutorials
• Evaluate Your Sources
• Cite Your Sources

What is a peer-reviewed source?

An article is called "peer-reviewed" because it is reviewed by experts in its field who vouch that the research is high-quality, original, and relevant. Peer-reviewed journals and presses have teams of experts who work with authors to ensure their writings meet high academic standards before publication. Peer-reviewed sources have a special place in scholarly discourse -- which includes your work as a Dallas College student -- because the rigorous review process affords credibility and authority.

This short video is a great explanation of the peer review process.

Anatomy of a peer-reviewed article

You can grasp the meaning of a scholarly article efficiently if you recognize and understand its distinctive features. While various disciplines have distinct writing conventions, here are some of the characteristics you will find in many scholarly articles:

Title: Generally describes the content of the article in dry and straightforward -- though sometimes technical -- language.

Listing of Authors and Affiliations: The authors and the academic or research institutions they are affiliated with are listed. Authors’ credentials may appear below their names or in a footnote.

Abstract: A brief summary of the article meant to give an overview of methods and key topics, so readers can know whether the article is relevant to their research before they invest time reading. It is also often accompanied by a list of keywords capturing the article’s central topics.

Introduction: Overview of the research topic or problem.

Literature Review: Often but not always titled “Literature Review,” this section reviews previous scholarship relevant to the article’s topic.

Methods: Summarizes the methods the authors used to conduct their research. A “methods” section is more common in science and social science than in humanities fields like English.

Results: Presents the key findings resulting from the authors’ research. A formal “results” section is more common in science and social science than in humanities.

Discussion/Conclusion: Summarizes and reflects on the significance of the research findings.

References: Citations that document the authors’ references to other scholarship.

Click on the picture below to explore the anatomy of a peer-reviewed article in more detail (opens in a new window).

The scholarly conversation

Peer-reviewed articles have the distinctive features explained in "Anatomy of a peer-reviewed article" because they have a special purpose. They exist to facilitate discussion and debate among scholars. That is why, for example, academic writing places great emphasis on citing and documenting sources. By documenting sources, scholars show they are aware of the important voices and viewpoints that have come before them. They can also then show how their original research adds new information or perspectives to the ongoing collective advancement of knowledge in their fields.

This video examines scholarly discourse and notes that your own academic writing brings your voice into the conversation.

How to find peer-reviewed articles

The library catalog

Here's how to find peer-reviewed journal articles in the library catalog. Along with entering your search terms, in the left-hand column, check "Peer-reviewed Journals" and "Articles," then click "Apply Filters."

Research databases

To find peer-reviewed articles in our research databases, limit your searches to peer-reviewed material. The interfaces vary, but you will find a control for choosing peer-reviewed materials in most of our databases. For example, in Academic OneFile, Under "Filter Your Results," you can check the box for "Peer-Reviewed Journals."

• << Previous: Find Information
• Next: Database Tutorials >>
•  Report an Online Accessibility Issue
• Report a Problem
• URL: https://libguides.dcccd.edu/research
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 10:50 AM
• Login to LibApps
• Search this Guide Search

• UConn Library
• Research Now
• Explore Information
• Understanding & Recognizing Peer Review

Explore Information — Understanding & Recognizing Peer Review

• Getting the Lay of the Land
• Why use Library Information?
• The Information Lifecycle
• Primary & Secondary Sources - Humanities & Social Sciences
• Primary & Secondary Sources - Sciences
• Help & Other Resources
• Research Now Homepage

What Do You Mean by Peer Reviewed Sources?

(Source: NCSU Libraries)

What's so great about peer review?

Peer reviewed articles are often considered the most reliable and reputable sources in that field of study. Peer reviewed articles have undergone review (hence the "peer-review") by fellow experts in that field, as well as an editorial review process. The purpose of this is to ensure that, as much as possible, the finished product meets the standards of the field. 

Peer reviewed publications are one of the main ways researchers communicate with each other. 

Most library databases have features to help you discover articles from scholarly journals. Most articles from scholarly journals have gone through the peer review process. Many scholarly journals will also publish book reviews or start off with an editorial, which are not peer reviewed - so don't be tricked!

So that means I can turn my brain off, right?

Nope! You still need to engage with what you find. Are there additional scholarly sources with research that supports the source you've found, or have you encountered an outlier in the research? Have others been able to replicate the results of the research? Is the information old and outdated? Was this study on toothpaste (for example) funded by Colgate? 

You're engaging with the research - ultimately, you decide what belongs in your project, and what doesn't. You get to decide if a source is relevant or not. It's a lot of responsibility - but it's a lot of authority, too.

Understanding Types of Sources

• Popular vs. Scholarly
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Check Yourself!

Popular vs. scholarly articles.

When looking for articles to use in your assignment, you should realize that there is a difference between "popular" and "scholarly" articles.

Popular  sources, such as newspapers and magazines, are written by journalists or others for general readers (for example, Time, Rolling Stone, and National Geographic).

Scholarly  sources are written for the academic community, including experts and students, on topics that are typically footnoted and based on research (for example, American Literature or New England Review). Scholarly journals are sometimes referred to as "peer-reviewed," "refereed" or "academic."

How do you find scholarly or "peer-reviewed" journal articles?

The option to select  scholarly or peer-reviewed articles is typically available on the search page of each database.  Just check the box or select the option . You can also search Ulrich's Periodical Directory  to see if the journal is Refereed / Peer-reviewed.  

Popular Sources (Magazines & Newspapers) Inform and entertain the general public.

• Are often written by journalists or professional writers for a general audience
• Use language easily understood by general readers
• Rarely give full citations for sources
• Written for the general public
• Tend to be shorter than journal articles

Scholarly or Academic Sources (Journals & Scholarly Books) Disseminate research and academic discussion among professionals in a discipline. 

• Are written by and for faculty, researchers or scholars (chemists, historians, doctors, artists, etc.)
• Uses scholarly or technical language
• Tend to be longer articles about research
• Include full citations for sources 
• Are often refereed or peer reviewed (articles are reviewed by an editor and other specialists before being accepted for publication)
• Publications may include book reviews and editorials which are not considered scholarly articles

Trade Publications Neither scholarly or popular sources, but could be a combination of both. Allows practitioners in specific industries to share market and production information that improves their businesses.

• Not peer reviewed. Usually written by people in the field or with subject expertise
• Shorter articles that are practical
• Provides information about current events and trends 

What might you find in a scholarly article?

• Title:  what the article is about
• Authors and affiliations:  the writer of the article and the professional affiliations. The credentials may appear below the name or in a footnote.
• Abstract: brief summary of the article. Gives you a general understanding  before you read the whole thing.
• Introduction: general overview of the research topic or problem
• Literature Review: what others have found on the same topic
• Methods:  information about how the authors conducted their research
• Results: key findings of the author's research
• Discussion/Conclusion: summary of the results or findings
• References: Citations to publications by other authors mentioned in the article
• Anatomy of a Scholarly Article This tutorial from the NCSU Libraries provides an interactive module for learning about the unique structure and elements of many scholarly articles.

• << Previous: Primary & Secondary Sources - Sciences
• Next: Help & Other Resources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 2, 2024 4:30 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/exploreinfo

• Collections
• Services & Support

Which Source Should I Use?

• The Right Source For Your Need-Authority
• Finding Subject Specific Sources: Research Guides
• Understanding Peer Reviewed Articles
• Understanding Peer Reviewed Articles- Arts & Humanities
• How to Read a Journal Article
• Locating Journals
• How to Find Streaming Media

The Peer Review Process

So you need to use scholarly, peer-reviewed articles for an assignment...what does that mean? 

Peer review  is a process for evaluating research studies before they are published by an academic journal. These studies typically communicate  original research  or analysis for other researchers. 

The Peer Review Process at a Glance:

Looking for peer-reviewed articles?  Try searching in OneSearch or a library database  and look for options to limit your results to scholarly/peer-reviewed or academic journals. Check out this brief tutorial to show you how:   How to Locate a Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Article

Part 1: Watch the Video

Part 1: watch the video all about peer review (3 min.) and reflect on discussion questions..

Discussion Questions

After watching the video, reflect on the following questions:

• According to the video, what are some of the pros and cons of the peer review process?
• Why is the peer review process important to scholarship?
• Do you think peer reviewers should be paid for their work? Why or why not?

Part 2: Practice

Part 2: take an interactive tutorial on reading a research article for your major..

Includes a certification of completion to download and upload to Canvas.

Social Sciences

(e.g. Psychology, Sociology)

(e.g. Health Science, Biology)

Arts & Humanities

(e.g. Visual & Media Arts, Cultural Studies, Literature, History)

Click on the handout to view in a new tab, download, or print.

For Instructors

• Teaching Peer Review for Instructors

In class or for homework, watch the video “All About Peer Review” (3 min.) .

Video discussion questions:

• According to the video, what are some of the pros and cons of the peer review process

Assignment Ideas

• Ask students to conduct their own peer review of an important journal article in your field. Ask them to reflect on the process. What was hard to critique?
• Have students examine a journals’ web page with information for authors. What information is given to the author about the peer review process for this journal?
• Assign this reading by CSUDH faculty member Terry McGlynn, "Should journals pay for manuscript reviews?" What is the author's argument? Who profits the most from published research? You could also hold a debate with one side for paying reviewers and the other side against.
• Search a database like Cabell’s for information on the journal submission process for a particular title or subject. How long does peer review take for a particular title? Is it is a blind review? How many reviewers are solicited? What is their acceptance rate?
• Assign short readings that address peer review models. We recommend this issue of Nature on peer review debate and open review and this Chronicle of Higher Education article on open review in Shakespeare Quarterly .

Proof of Completion

Mix and match this suite of instructional materials for your course needs!

Questions about integrating a graded online component into your class, contact the Online Learning Librarian, Rebecca Nowicki ( [email protected] ).

Example of a certificate of completion:

• << Previous: Finding Subject Specific Sources: Research Guides
• Next: Understanding Peer Reviewed Articles- Arts & Humanities >>
• Last Updated: Jun 12, 2024 2:51 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sdsu.edu/WhichSource

Finding Peer Reviewed Sources: What is Peer Review?

• What is Peer Review?
• Is It Peer Reviewed?
• Databases with Peer Reviewed Content

Ask a Librarian

You Might Also Like...

• Finding Research and Review Articles by Shanti Freundlich Last Updated Aug 9, 2024 218 views this year
• Smart Search by Shanti Freundlich Last Updated Aug 16, 2024 340 views this year
• Finding a Journal by Sarah Muellers Last Updated Aug 16, 2024 40 views this year
• INF 110: Introduction to Research Essentials by Erica Cataldi-Roberts Last Updated Jul 10, 2024 616 views this year

Librarian Search Tip

The peer review process is done at the article level , and then published in an issue of a journal. Just like with a popular magazine, lots of different types of content goes into a journal - not just peer reviewed articles. When you find a potential article, make sure you double-check that it's not one of those other types of content (editorial, book review, column, opinion piece, etc).

Peer Review vs Refereed vs Academic vs Scholarly

Depending on the field, assignment and professor, you may be asked to find  peer reviewed, refereed, academic, or scholarly articles. If you're confused about assignment requirements, we strongly encourage you to discuss them with your professor!

Peer Reviewed or Refereed  

These terms are interchangeable with each other - the articles are always either reviewed or refereed by multiple experts (peers) in a highly structured and critical process. The author then receives that feedback, makes changes and resubmits the work, and then the journal editor decides whether or not to publish it. 

Academic or Scholarly

These terms are interchangeable with each other, and these articles are not always peer reviewed/refereed. These articles are still research focused and heavily sources (lots of references), and written for an academic audience, but they may have only been reviewed by an editorial board, rather than content experts. 

The Peer Review Process

According to Understanding Science , peer review does the same thing for science (and other fields of study) as the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it. The peer review process typical works something like this:

• A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.  
• The journal's editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the "peers" of peer review ).  
• Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.  
• The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.  
• Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies , back up claims with evidence , etc.) are accepted for publication.  

More on Peer Review from Understanding Science

Video: peer review in 3 minutes.

This video from the NCSU Libraries quickly and concisely discusses how articles get peer reviewed, and the role of peer review in scholarly research and publication.

• Next: Is It Peer Reviewed? >>
• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 8:10 AM
• URL: https://mcphs.libguides.com/peer_review

Peer review

A key convention in the publication of research is the peer review process, in which the quality and potential contribution of each manuscript is evaluated by one's peers in the scientific community.

Like other scientific journals, APA journals utilize a peer review process to guide manuscript selection and publication decisions.

Toward the goal of impartiality, the majority of APA journals follow a masked review policy, in which authors' and reviewers' identities are concealed from each other. Reviewer identities are never shared unless the reviewer requests to sign their review.

APA journal reviewers are qualified individuals selected by the action editor (typically, the journal editor or associate editor) to review a manuscript on the basis of their expertise in particular content areas of their field.

The role of a peer reviewer is to highlight unique, original manuscripts that fit within the scope of the journal.

To aid the editor's objectivity, two to three peer reviewers are selected to evaluate a manuscript.

These reviewers should be able to provide fair reviews, free from conflicts of interest, as well as submit the reviews on time.

In addition to technical expertise, criteria for selection of reviewers may include familiarity with a particular controversy or attention to a balance of perspectives (APA, 2010, p. 226).

Whereas the journal editor holds final responsibility for a manuscript, the action editor usually weighs reviewers' inputs heavily.

Authors can expect their manuscripts to be reviewed fairly, in a skilled, conscientious manner. The comments received should be constructive, respectful and specific.

Reviewers must present a clear decision recommendation regarding publication, considering the quality of the manuscript, its scientific contribution, and its appropriateness for the particular journal; support the recommendation with a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the quality and coherence of the study's conceptual basis, methods, results, and interpretations; and offer specific, constructive suggestions to authors.

Journal editors may request that reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on specific criteria, which may vary across journals or for non-empirical article types, such as commentaries or reviews.

The action editor scans the paper to gain an independent view of the work. This "quick read" provides a foundation for the more thorough reading that follows — it by no means determines the final decision, but does parallel how authors can expect many reviewers (and readers) to approach their papers.

First, the editor scans the paper from beginning to end for obvious flaws in the research substance and writing style. If problems show on the surface, a deeper reading is likely to uncover other matters needing attention.

After this initial examination of your manuscript, the action editors, as well as any peer reviewers, will follow these general guidelines:

Read the abstract

Major problems in the abstract often reflect internal flaws.

The major goal in reading the abstract is to understand the research question:

• Is it clearly defined, relevant, and supported by the methodology?
• What is the sense of the research question, methodology, findings, and interpretations?

APA publication policy emphasizes conclusion-oriented abstracts: What did the research find, and what do the findings mean?

Examine the full manuscript

If it is more than 35 typed, double-spaced pages (including references, tables, and figures), this could pose a problem for some journals.

• How long are the Introduction and the Discussion sections relative to other sections of the paper?
• Does the paper adhere to journal-specific guidelines?

These guidelines can be found on the Manuscript Submission tab of each journal's webpage.

Scan the paper's headings

• Are they well organized?
• Does a clear structure emerge?

If not, the author has not achieved coherence.

Scan the references

• Are they in APA Style?

If not, the author is not using APA publication format.

Scan the tables and figures

• Do they portray the information clearly?
• Can they stand alone without captions?
• Are they well constructed and in APA Style?

A "no" to any of these questions suggests problems in the author's presentation of findings.

• If the text contains a large number of statistics, could they be more appropriately put into tables or figures?

The editor drafting the decision letter should be synthesizing the input from multiple reviewers into a cohesive list of improvements that should be made to the manuscript. Any comments from the reviewers will be appended to the official decision letter.

These categories constitute the editorial actions that may be taken on a manuscript.

The flaws that lead to this decision generally center on substantive or methodological issues. A manuscript is usually rejected because it is outside the area of coverage of the journal; it contains serious flaws of design, methodology, analysis, or interpretation; or it is judged to make only a limited novel contribution to the field.

Revise and resubmit

In most cases, manuscripts may have publication potential but are not yet ready for final publication. The study as presented may not merit acceptance as is but may warrant consideration after substantive revision (e.g., reorganizing the conceptual structure, conducting additional experiments, or modifying analyses).

The action editor will give the author an invitation to revise and resubmit for another round of reviews (usually with the same reviewers). An action editor cannot guarantee acceptance of a revised manuscript, but authors who respond flexibly and attend closely to suggested revisions enhance their chances for an acceptance.

Authors must include a detailed cover letter outlining their responses to the revisions. Authors may receive this decision multiple times prior to acceptance.

In very few cases, a manuscript may be accepted for publication on first reading, with only minor revisions required. More typically, acceptances follow the successful revision of a manuscript previously rejected with invitation to revise and resubmit.

Once a manuscript is accepted and appropriate paperwork has been obtained, it enters the production phase of publication. At this point, no further changes can be made by the author other than those suggested by the copyeditor.

• Guidelines for Effective Manuscript Evaluation (from Psychotherapy )
• Peer review ethics: Six things every author should know (from Division Dialogue , March 2018)
• Current Peer Review Trends and Standards

If your manuscript is rejected, and if you believe a pertinent point was overlooked or misunderstood by the reviewers, you may appeal the editorial decision by contacting the editor responsible for the journal.

The editor might then decide to send the appeal to the (associate) editor who handled the initial submission.

If you appeal to the editor and are not satisfied with the editor's response, the next step in the APA editorial appeal procedure is to contact the APA chief editorial advisor .

If a satisfactory resolution is still not achieved, and you still believe that the process was unfair, you may appeal to the Publications and Communications (P&C) Board.

An initial review by the journals publisher and P&C Board chair and chair-elect will determine if the appeal will go before the full board for final decision.

Cases in which an appeal might not go before the full board are those in which an author submitted a manuscript against a journal’s policy (e.g., if a rejected submission was revised and submitted as a new submission without invitation to do so).

• APA publishing resources
• Reviewer Resource Center
• Editor resource center
• Why publish with APA Journals™
• Equity, diversity, and inclusion in APA Journals™

APA Publishing Insider

APA Publishing Insider is a free monthly newsletter with tips on APA Style, open science initiatives, active calls for papers, research summaries, and more.

Visit the APA Style website for style and grammar guidelines, free instructional aids, reference examples, the APA Style blog, APA Style products, and more.

Contact Journals

How to Use JSTOR

• About JSTOR
• Logging into JSTOR
• Peer Review
• Images on JSTOR
• Using the Workspace
• Video Tutorials

Get Help with JSTOR

JSTOR Website & Technical Support

 Email:  [email protected]  Text:  (734)-887-7001  Call Toll Free in the U.S.:  (888)-388-3574  Call Local and International:  (734)-887-7001

Hours of operation:  Mon - Fri, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EDT (GMT -4:00)

Peer Reviewed Content on JSTOR

“is all the content on jstor peer reviewed”.

This is a common question from researchers using JSTOR. While nearly all of the journals collected in JSTOR are peer-reviewed publications, the archives also contain primary sources and content that is much older than today's standard peer-review process. However, all content on JSTOR is considered scholarly content.

In the following section we'll look at the peer review process, the definition of scholarly content, and how that relates to content on JSTOR.

Peer Review & Scholarly Content FAQs

What is peer review.

Peer review is the evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in the same occupation, profession, or industry. 

In academia, peer review has become an integral part of the publishing process, where journal articles and books are formally evaluated by fellow researchers and experts in one’s field of study. Outside of academia, peer review has become the ultimate signifier that a work is based in facts. 

How is this different from scholarly content?

The primary difference is that peer-reviewed content requires a strict "peer approval" for publishing. Scholarly content that is not peer-reviewed only requires the approval of an editorial board.

Scholarly content is research-focused, published information; it reports the results of original research and experimentation. Peer-reviewed journals and books are always scholarly in nature, but scholarly content is not always peer-reviewed. This content is heavily cited in the form of either footnotes or bibliographies, and written by, and addressed to, experts in a discipline. 

How do I know if content on JSTOR has been peer reviewed?

This is a common question for researchers using JSTOR. However, the answer is quite complex. Peer review is a modern process that has only been widely accepted since the 1970s. Additionally, primary sources are not peer-reviewed but are still used for scholarly research. A large percentage of the content on JSTOR is either academic content that was published prior to the peer-review process or primary sources that are not subjected to the peer-review evaluation.

When asking if content on JSTOR has been peer reviewed, most researchers are actually asking “is this content scholarly and academic?” 

• << Previous: Searching JSTOR
• Next: Images on JSTOR >>
• Last Updated: Aug 2, 2024 9:01 AM
• URL: https://guides.jstor.org/how-to-jstor

JSTOR is part of ITHAKA , a not-for-profit organization helping the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways.

©2000-2024 ITHAKA. All Rights Reserved. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, Artstor® and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA.

JSTOR.org Terms and Conditions   Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Cookie settings Accessibility

• Reserve a study room
• Library Account
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff

Evaluate My Sources

• Scholarly/Peer-reviewed Sources
• Substantive Sources This link opens in a new window
• News Articles
• Evaluating Websites
• Need more help? This link opens in a new window

Call: 1-866-VCU-BOOK E-mail: [email protected] More contact information

What are scholarly sources?

Most of the time when people refer to scholarly sources , they're referring to a certain type of articles and books.

Scholarly articles --which your professor may also call peer-reviewed, refereed, or academic articles --are considered the most reliable information sources. They are written by experts and go through a rigorous process where other subject experts analyze and critique the arguments to identify errors, faulty logic, and other problems. This process is called peer review , and while it's not foolproof, it does mean that these sources are likely to have the most trustworthy information on your topic.

Scholarly articles are:

• Written by and for scholars, experts, or specialists. Authors should list their credentials.
• Published by an academic press, university, scholarly publisher, or professional organization.
• Written in factual, technical, and scholarly language.
• Intended to report on research and scholarship.
• Supported by bibliographies, works cited pages, and reference lists.
• Subject to a rigorous process called peer review , in which scholars critique, approve, or reject studies for publication.

Scholarly books share all of the characteristics of scholarly articles listed above, except one: instead of being subjected to the peer review process that articles undergo, they are instead reviewed by an editor.

Understanding the peer review process

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Substantive Sources >>
• Last Updated: Aug 22, 2024 12:28 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/evaluate

Evidence-Based Health Care

• Learning About EBP
• The 6S Pyramid
• Forming Questions
• Identifying Peer-Reviewed Resources
• Critical Appraisal

What is Peer Review?

If an article is peer reviewed , it was reviewed by scholars who are experts in related academic or professional fields before it was published. Those scholars assessed the quality of the article's research, as well as its overall contribution to the literature in their field. 

When we talk about peer-reviewed journals , we're referring to journals that use a peer-review process.

Related terms you might hear include: 

• Academic: Intended for academic use, or an academic audience. 
• Scholarly:  Intended for scholarly use, or a scholarly audience. 
• Refereed: Refers to a specific kind of peer-review process. 

National University Library System. (2018). "Find Articles: How to Find Scholarly/Peer-Reviewed Articles". Retrieved from: http://nu.libguides.com/articles/PR.

How Peer Review Works

 Here's how it typically works:

• Submission : An author submits their research paper or article to a scholarly journal for publication consideration.
• Editorial Assessment : The journal's editor(s) review the submission to determine if it meets the journal's scope, standards, and criteria for publication. They may reject it outright if it doesn't meet these criteria.
• Peer Review : If the submission passes the initial editorial assessment, it is sent out to experts in the field, known as "peers" or "referees," for thorough evaluation. These experts are typically researchers or scholars who have expertise in the subject matter of the submitted work but are not directly affiliated with the author.
• Peer Feedback : The peer reviewers carefully examine the submission for its originality, significance, methodology, accuracy, and overall quality. They provide detailed feedback, critiques, and suggestions for improvement to the journal's editor(s).
• Editorial Decision : Based on the feedback from the peer reviewers, the editor(s) make a decision on whether to accept the submission for publication, request revisions from the author(s) to address specific concerns, or reject it if it does not meet the journal's standards.
• Revision and Resubmission (if applicable): If revisions are requested, the author(s) revise their work in response to the reviewers' feedback and resubmit it to the journal. The revised version may undergo further rounds of peer review until it meets the journal's requirements.
• Publication : Once the submission has successfully passed peer review and any necessary revisions, it is accepted for publication and included in the journal's forthcoming issue.

Peer review serves as a critical checkpoint in the academic publishing process, helping to ensure that only high-quality, rigorously researched, and credible scholarly work is disseminated to the academic community and the public. It helps to uphold standards of academic integrity, accuracy, and reliability.

How Do I Know If a Journal is Peer-Reviewed?

The easiest way to find out if a journal is peer-reviewed is to search for the title in a serials directory like UlrichsWeb:

• UlrichsWeb Global Serials Directory Includes in each record: ISBN, title, publisher, country of publication, status (Active, ceased, etc.), start year, frequency, refereed (Yes/No), media, language, price, subject, Dewey #, circulation, editor(s), email, URL, brief description Also known as: Ulrichs

How to Use Ulrichs

1. Type the name of the journal in the search bar and click the search button. NOTE : you need to use the full name of the journal, not an abbreviation.

2. Locate the journal in the results list. You may see multiple entries for one journal because Ulrichs lists print, electronic, and international version separately.​​​​​​​

Other Techniques for Determining Peer Review Status

Determining whether an article has been peer-reviewed without a service like Ulrichs typically involves a few steps:

• Journal Reputation: Look at the journal where the article is published. Reputable academic journals usually have a peer-review process in place. Check the journal's website or databases like PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science to see if it's peer-reviewed.
• Article Information: Sometimes, journals explicitly state whether articles undergo peer review. This information can usually be found on the journal's website, alongside other details about submission and publication processes.
• Author Guidelines: Journals often provide authors with guidelines that include information about the peer-review process. Authors are usually instructed to submit their work for peer review as part of the publication process.
• Editorial Policies: Review the journal's editorial policies. Peer-reviewed journals typically have detailed descriptions of their review processes, including how they select reviewers, criteria for acceptance, and timelines for review.
• Check the Article Itself: While this is not always conclusive, some peer-reviewed articles will include a statement indicating that the article has undergone peer review. Look for phrases like "peer-reviewed" and "refereed."
• Indexing Databases: Many indexing databases only include peer-reviewed journals in their listings. If you find the article indexed in databases like PubMed, you can generally assume it has been peer-reviewed.

Remember that while these methods can help you determine whether an article has undergone peer review, it's always good practice to critically evaluate the content of the article regardless of its peer-review status.

How Do I Know If an Article is Peer-Reviewed?

Even if an article was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it may not necessarily be peer-reviewed itself; for example, a commentary article may undergo editorial review instead, meaning it was only reviewed by the journal editor.

There are some clues you can look for to help you identify if an article is peer-reviewed:

• Does the abstract discuss the author's/authors' research process?
• Does the abstract include a variation of the phrase "This study..."?
• Is there a Methodology or Data header in the text of the article?
• Does the paper discuss related research in a literature review?
• Is there an analysis of a need for further research, or gaps in the literature?
• Are the references for scholarly articles and books?

If an article published in a verified peer-reviewed journal includes these elements, it is most likely a peer-reviewed article.

• National University Library: Scholarly Checklist Use this printable checklist to help you identify scholarly, research-based articles

Identifying Peer Reviewed Materials in Scholarly Databases

Peer reviewed material in pubmed and medline.

Good news! Most of the journals in Medline and PubMed are peer reviewed.  Generally speaking, if you find a journal citation in Medline and PubMed you should be just fine. However, there is no way to limit your results within PubMed or the Medline EBSCO interface to knock out the few publications that are not considered refereed titles.

However, EBSCO (a third-party vendor) does provide a list of all titles within Medline and lets you see which titles are considered peer reviewed. You can check if your journal is OK - see the "Peer Review" tab in the report below to see the very small list of titles that don't make the cut.

• Medline: List of Full-Text Journals These journals cover a wide range of subjects within the biomedical and health fields containing information needed by doctors, nurses, health professionals, and researchers engaged in clinical care, public health, and health policy development. Information on peer-reviewed status available within table of titles.

Peer Reviewed Material in CINAHL & PsycINFO

In CINAHL and PsycINFO, there is a "Peer Reviewed" box in the advanced search, which allows you to limit your search results to those that have been identified as peer reviewed.

• View the Title List for CINAHL Complete This page links to the full title list for CINAHL Complete in both Excel and HTML formats.
• << Previous: Forming Questions
• Next: Critical Appraisal >>
• Last Updated: Aug 6, 2024 9:06 AM
• URL: https://libguides.libraries.wsu.edu/EBHC

Research Basics: Identifying Sources

• The Research Process
• Asking Questions

Evaluating Sources

• Presenting Findings

On this page:

Scholarly & Popular Sources Primary & Secondary Sources News & Opinion Glossary of Source Types

Ready to search?

Articles Books News Audio & Video

Next stage:

Recognizing source types.

Locating sources of information for your research will be easier and more successful if you prepare by learning to recognize various types of sources that you may be asked to use. When you're ready to start searching, click one of the links under "Ready to Search?" on the left.

Scholarly & Popular Sources

When you have a research assignment, many professors will expect you to read and cite scholarly sources, which are often contrasted with popular sources. The main differences between scholarly and popular sources involve how they are published and their purpose .

Popular sources like newspaper and magazine articles are intended for a general audience. They tend to be short, easy to read, and enhanced with eye-catching images and colors.

Scholarly sources are longer, more complex, and full of text. They may include charts and graphs or reproductions of images that are interpreted in the text. Most, but not all, scholarly sources are peer reviewed . Examples of scholarly sources include articles published in scholarly journals and books published by university and academic presses.

Secondary & Primary Sources

The main differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources involve how they are created and their purpose .

Primary & Secondary Sources in the Sciences

Primary & Secondary Sources in the Arts & Humanities

News & Opinion

Be aware that many newspapers and news sites publish both news stories and opinion pieces. The main differences between news and opinion articles involve their purpose .

News Stories

News stories are articles written by journalists that report the facts about current issues and events; they strive to be accurate and to avoid bias.

Example:  Guynn, J. (2023). Trust in social media is in free-fall. USA Today .

Opinion Pieces and Editorials

Opinion pieces represent a particular author's opinions and analysis related to issues and events.

Example:  Siegel, M. (2023). Families are key in limiting the social media trap. USA Today .

Editorials are opinion pieces that typically represent the views of the publication's editors or publishers.

Example:  Villalobos, L. (2022). It’s too late to worry about Kim Kardashian’s daughter’s social media. USA Today .

The outmoded term  op-ed refers to the traditional location of opinion columns in a printed newspaper, opposite the editorial page.

Reviews are opinion pieces that represent a critic's evaluation of a book, movie, art exhibition, etc.

Glossary of Source Types

The previous sections highlight the ways that various source types differ in how they are created, how they are published, and their purposes. This glossary will help you distinguish among the various source types that are listed in the library catalog and other databases.

What is a database?

A database is an organized collection of information . Databases usually include tools that allow people to browse their contents, to search for specific items, or both.

Databases can contain many different types and formats of information. For example, the website Genius.com is a database of song lyrics. Spotify is a database of audio recordings with a built-in audio player.

Library databases like WorldCat Discovery, JSTOR, and Films on Demand, include records that describe books, articles, videos, and other information sources. These records may indicate the location of physical items like books or link to full digital texts and recordings.

Click any term for a definition of the source type.

Abstract Academic Journal Article Book Chapter Citation Conference Paper Data Set Dissertation Government Document Journal Magazine Manuscript Microform Newspaper Peer-Reviewed Journal Proceedings Reference Book Report Review Scholarly Journal Thesis Trade Journal White Paper Working Paper

• A monograph is a single-author book on a single topic.
• An edited volume is a collections of thematically related essays by different authors.
• A reference book is a single- or multivolume work such as a dictionary, encyclopedia, or handbook that provides a general overview and factual information about a topic.

A journal is a printed or digital publication, typically distributed monthly or quarterly, that contains articles pertaining to a particular subject.

A scholarly or academic journal contains research articles and reviews written by scholars in a particular academic field of study. Most research articles published in scholarly journals are peer-reviewed , meaning that they are evaluated and approved by other scholars working in the same field prior to publication. Refereed is a synonym for peer-reviewed.

A trade journal contains articles and reviews written by and for people working in a particular profession.

A report is a standalone document that provides an account of an investigation, typically one conducted on behalf of a government agency or a nongovernmental organization.

A white paper is a type of report that recommends a solution to a problem within an industry.

• Book reviews are brief articles published in newspapers, magazines, and scholarly journals. Newspapers and magazines publish reviews of popular fiction, nonfiction and poetry. Scholarly journals publish reviews of one or more scholarly books in their field.
• Newspapers and magazines also publish reviews of movies, theatrical performances, and art exhibitions .
• Many scholarly articles include a brief literature review section that explains the relationship between the current study and previously published research. A literature review article is a standalone piece that provides a critical evaluation of previous publications on a specific topic within an academic subject.
• << Previous: Asking Questions
• Next: Articles >>
• Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 4:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.su.edu/researchbasics

UNE Library Services

Research Help

Peer review & scholarly sources.

Your assignment may specify that you use only scholarly sources in your work. How can you tell if a source is considered scholarly?

What is a Scholarly Source?

Scholarly sources are research articles published in scholarly journals. A research article is a report on original research, written by the researchers, with an audience of other researchers in mind. This is how experts in academic fields report their findings to one another and build knowledge based on previous research.

Peer Review

Research articles published in scholarly journals are peer-reviewed, or refereed.

Peer-review is a rigorous process by which articles are evaluated by a panel of experts in the field; the author’s peers. The peer-reviewers make sure that:

• The article is accurate
• The research methods are sound
• The research contributes new information to the field
• It is free of bias or conflicts of interest

This process ensures that the article meets the highest standards for academic research.

How can I tell if a journal is scholarly?

To determine if a journal is considered scholarly, look for whether the journal:

• Is published or sponsored by a professional society or association
• Includes a list of reviewers or editorial board members
• Describes their review process
• Look it up in the Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory , which tracks the details of journal publications, including whether they are peer-reviewed or considered scholarly.

What is not scholarly?

You may find articles from popular magazines, newspapers, trade publications, websites, corporate reports, or other resources while doing research on your topic. These types of publications:

• Are written by journalists or tradespeople
• Are intended for a broad audience
• Often do not include references to back up their claims
• Can be based on personal opinion or intended to sway the audience towards a particular point of view.

These may be good resources if carefully evaluated , but are not considered scholarly. When in doubt, check with your professor.

Finding Scholarly Sources

Library Search Results

You can limit your library search results to scholarly & peer reviewed sources by checking the box on the left-hand side.

Find scholarly sources in research databases, but don’t assume that everything you find in a database is a scholarly source. Scholarly journals can also publish editorials, letters, and opinion pieces which are not considered scholarly.

Predatory Publishers

Websites that appear to be legitimate journals, but which do not follow the peer-review process or lack the rigor of a scholarly journal are a prevalent and growing problem in academic publishing. Cabell’s Predatory Reports maintains a list of journals that engage in predatory practices. Predatory journals are not considered scholarly sources, although some do a very good job of appearing so!

Questions & Help

If you have questions on this, or another, topic, contact a librarian for help!

What are Peer-Reviewed Journals?

• A Definition of Peer-Reviewed
• Research Guides and Tutorials
• Library FAQ Page This link opens in a new window

Research Help

540-828-5642 [email protected] 540-318-1962

• Bridgewater College
• Church of the Brethren
• regional history materials
• the Reuel B. Pritchett Museum Collection

Additional Resources

• What are Peer-reviewed Articles and How Do I Find Them? From Capella University Libraries

Introduction

Peer-reviewed journals (also called scholarly or refereed journals) are a key information source for your college papers and projects. They are written by scholars for scholars and are an reliable source for information on a topic or discipline. These journals can be found either in the library's online databases, or in the library's local holdings. This guide will help you identify whether a journal is peer-reviewed and show you tips on finding them.

What is Peer-Review?

Peer-review is a process where an article is verified by a group of scholars before it is published.

When an author submits an article to a peer-reviewed journal, the editor passes out the article to a group of scholars in the related field (the author's peers). They review the article, making sure that its sources are reliable, the information it presents is consistent with the research, etc. Only after they give the article their "okay" is it published.

The peer-review process makes sure that only quality research is published: research that will further the scholarly work in the field.

When you use articles from peer-reviewed journals, someone has already reviewed the article and said that it is reliable, so you don't have to take the steps to evaluate the author or his/her sources. The hard work is already done for you!

Identifying Peer-Review Journals

If you have the physical journal, you can look for the following features to identify if it is peer-reviewed.

Masthead (The first few pages) : includes information on the submission process, the editorial board, and maybe even a phrase stating that the journal is "peer-reviewed."

Publisher: Peer-reviewed journals are typically published by professional organizations or associations (like the American Chemical Society). They also may be affiliated with colleges/universities.

Graphics:  Typically there either won't be any images at all, or the few charts/graphs are only there to supplement the text information. They are usually in black and white.

Authors: The authors are listed at the beginning of the article, usually with information on their affiliated institutions, or contact information like email addresses.

Abstracts: At the beginning of the article the authors provide an extensive abstract detailing their research and any conclusions they were able to draw.

Terminology:  Since the articles are written by scholars for scholars, they use uncommon terminology specific to their field and typically do not define the words used.

Citations: At the end of each article is a list of citations/reference. These are provided for scholars to either double check their work, or to help scholars who are researching in the same general area.

Advertisements: Peer-reviewed journals rarely have advertisements. If they do the ads are for professional organizations or conferences, not for national products.

Identifying Articles from Databases

When you are looking at an article in an online database, identifying that it comes from a peer-reviewed journal can be more difficult. You do not have access to the physical journal to check areas like the masthead or advertisements, but you can use some of the same basic principles.

Points you may want to keep in mind when you are evaluating an article from a database:

• A lot of databases provide you with the option to limit your results to only those from peer-reviewed or refereed journals. Choosing this option means all of your results will be from those types of sources.  
• When possible, choose the PDF version of the article's full text. Since this is exactly as if you photocopied from the journal, you can get a better idea of its layout, graphics, advertisements, etc.  
• Even in an online database you still should be able to check for author information, abstracts, terminology, and citations.
• Next: Research Guides and Tutorials >>
• Last Updated: Dec 12, 2023 4:06 PM
• URL: https://libguides.bridgewater.edu/c.php?g=945314

Peer-Reviewed Literature: Peer-Reviewed Research: Primary vs. Secondary

• Peer-Reviewed Research: Primary vs. Secondary
• Types of Peer Review
• Identifying Peer-Reviewed Research

Peer Reviewed Research

Published literature can be either peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed. Official research reports are almost always peer reviewed while a journal's other content is usually not. In the health sciences, official research can be primary, secondary, or even tertiary. It can be an original experiment or investigation (primary), an analysis or evaluation of primary research (secondary), or findings that compile secondary research (tertiary). If you are doing research yourself, then primary or secondary sources can reveal more in-depth information.

Primary Research

Primary research is information presented in its original form without interpretation by other researchers. While it may acknowledge previous studies or sources, it always presents original thinking, reports on discoveries, or new information about a topic.

Health sciences research that is primary includes both experimental trials and observational studies where subjects may be tested for outcomes or investigated to gain relevant insight.  Randomized Controlled Trials are the most prominent experimental design because randomized subjects offer the most compelling evidence for the effectiveness of an intervention. See the below graphic and below powerpoint for further information on primary research studies.

• Research Design

Secondary Research

Secondary research is an account of original events or facts. It is secondary to and retrospective of the actual findings from an experiment or trial. These studies may be appraised summaries, reviews, or interpretations of primary sources and often exclude the original researcher(s). In the health sciences, meta-analysis and systematic reviews are the most frequent types of secondary research. 

• A meta-analysis is a quantitative method of combining the results of primary research. In analyzing the relevant data and statistical findings from experimental trials or observational studies, it can more accurately calculate effective resolutions regarding certain health topics.
• A systematic review is a summary of research that addresses a focused clinical question in a systematic, reproducible manner. In order to provide the single best estimate of effect in clinical decision making, primary research studies are pooled together and then filtered through an inclusion/exclusion process. The relevant data and findings are then compiled and synthesized to arrive at a more accurate conclusion about a specific health topic. Only peer-reviewed publications are used and analyzed in a methodology which may or may not include a meta-analysis.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Types of Peer Review >>
• Last Updated: Sep 29, 2023 10:05 AM
• URL: https://ttuhsc.libguides.com/PeerReview

Expert Research Help from IUB Libraries

• Learn More About a Possible Topic
• Topic to Question
• Primary Sources
• Peer-Reviewed Sources
• Books and Newspapers
• Top 10 Research Tips
• Searching with Keywords
• Searching with OneSearch@IU
• Searching on IUCAT
• Following a Citation
• Finding the Full-Text
• Annotated Bibliography
• Citation Generators
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Contacting a Subject Librarian

Ask a Librarian (Chat)

Peer reviewed/scholarly sources.

• << Previous: Primary Sources
• Next: Books and Newspapers >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 11:23 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/expert-research-help-iub

Social media

• Instagram for Herman B Wells Library
• Facebook for IU Libraries

Additional resources

Featured databases.

• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) OneSearch@IU
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Academic Search (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) ERIC (EBSCO)
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Nexis Uni
• Resource available without restriction HathiTrust Digital Library
• Databases A-Z
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Google Scholar
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) JSTOR
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Web of Science
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) Scopus
• Resource available to authorized IU Bloomington users (on or off campus) WorldCat

IU Libraries

• Diversity Resources
• About IU Libraries
• Alumni & Friends
• Departments & Staff
• Jobs & Libraries HR
• Intranet (Staff)
• IUL site admin

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

Research Process

• Brainstorming
• Explore Google This link opens in a new window
• Explore Web Resources
• Explore Background Information
• Explore Books
• Explore Scholarly Articles
• Narrowing a Topic
• Primary and Secondary Resources
• Academic, Popular & Trade Publications

Scholarly and Peer-Reviewed Journals

• Grey Literature
• Clinical Trials
• Evidence Based Treatment
• Scholarly Research
• Database Research Log
• Search Limits
• Keyword Searching
• Boolean Operators
• Phrase Searching
• Truncation & Wildcard Symbols
• Proximity Searching
• Field Codes
• Subject Terms and Database Thesauri
• Reading a Scientific Article
• Website Evaluation
• Article Keywords and Subject Terms
• Cited References
• Citing Articles
• Related Results
• Search Within Publication
• Database Alerts & RSS Feeds
• Personal Database Accounts
• Persistent URLs
• Literature Gap and Future Research
• Web of Knowledge
• Annual Reviews
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• Finding Seminal Works
• Exhausting the Literature
• Finding Dissertations
• Researching Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology & Design
• Tests and Measurements
• Organizing Research & Citations This link opens in a new window
• Picking Where to Publish
• Bibliometrics
• Learn the Library This link opens in a new window

Library FAQs

How do I find scholarly, peer reviewed journal articles?

• What is the difference between scholarly and peer reviewed journals?
• How do I determine if a particular journal is peer reviewed?
• What are empirical articles? How do I locate them in NCU Library?
• Are dissertations and theses considered scholarly or peer-reviewed resources?
• Are books peer reviewed? If so, how can I tell or how can I find them?
• Are law reviews considered to be scholarly and peer-reviewed?
• Are government sources considered to be scholarly?

Scholarly journals are journals which are well respected for the information and research they provide on a particular subject. They are written by experts in a particular field or discipline and their purpose is to advance the ongoing body of work within their discipline. These articles might present original research data and findings, or take a position on a key question within the field. They can be difficult to read, because their intended audience is other experts and academics, but they are the capstone when it comes to authoritative information.

Scholarly journals are oftentimes peer reviewed or refereed . A peer-reviewed or refereed article has gone through a process where other scholars in the author’s field or discipline critically assess a draft of the article. The actual evaluations are similar to editing notes, where the author receives detailed and constructive feedback from the peer experts. However, these reviews are not made available publicly. For an example peer review of a fictitious article, see the Sample Peer-Review of a Fictitious Manuscript link below.

Please keep in mind that not all scholarly journals go through the peer-review process. However, it is safe to assume that a peer-reviewed journal is also scholarly. In short, “scholarly” means the article was written by an expert for an audience of other experts, researchers or students. “Peer-reviewed” takes it one step further and means the article was reviewed and critiqued by the author’s peers who are experts in the same subject area. The vast majority of scholarly articles are peer reviewed.

However, because there are many different types of peer-review, be sure to evaluate the resource itself to determine if it is suitable for your research needs. For example, law reviews may indicate that they are peer-reviewed, but their "peers" are other students. Please see the Law Reviews FAQ below for more explanation.

If you need help determining whether a scholarly journal is peer reviewed or refereed we recommend using the Ulrichsweb database. Ulrichsweb is the authoritative source of bibliographic and publisher information on more than 300,000 periodicals of all types, including academic and scholarly journals. Find out more about how to use and access Ulrichsweb through NU Library by watching the Ulrichsweb Quick Tutorial Video (link below).

For additional instruction on scholarly vs. peer reviewed journals, please see the Library's Scholarly vs. Peer-Reviewed Journals Quick Tutorial Video (link below).

For information about how to limit your database searches to scholarly/peer-journals, see the following FAQ:

• Sample Peer-Review of a Fictitious Manuscript
• Law Reviews FAQ
• Ulrichsweb Quick Tutorial Video
• Scholarly vs. Peer-Reviewed Journals Quick Tutorial Video

Peer Review Process

For scholarly information on the peer review process, see the following resources:

• Chenail, R. (2008). Peer review. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 605-606). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412963909.n313
• Constantine, N. (2008). Peer review process. In S. Boslaugh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of epidemiology (Vol. 2, pp. 795-796). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412953948.n343
• Mark, M. & Chua, P. (2005). Peer review. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 299-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781412950558.n404

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Academic, Popular & Trade Publications
• Next: Grey Literature >>
• Last Updated: Aug 12, 2024 7:35 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchprocess

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

Education Research Guide

• Articles and Databases

VIDEO: Evaluating Sources

Evaluating digital sources using lateral reading, peer review, peer reviewed articles, evaluating websites, domain names.

• Citing Sources in APA 7th ed.
• Narrowing a Topic
• Background Research
• Types of Information
• Beginning your Research
• Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership This link opens in a new window
• Education Policy
• Education Statistics
• Special Education Resources
• Children's Books

PEER-REVIEWED  ARTICLES

• Original, scholarly research conducted by experts within a field or discipline
• Prior to publication, work is reviewed by other scholars or experts within that same discipline
• Peer-review ensures that the information being presented to you is based on solid evidence, scientific facts, not opinions
• Provides a level of quality control
• Articles generally include: Introduction, literature review, method, analysis, conclusion, references

Peer review is important not only because your professors will be requiring it of you, but also because they represent the most scholarly, most authoritative information within the different disciplines

AUTHORSHIP 

• Who authored the website? Are they an authority on the subject? If the author is an organization, what do you know about its purpose?
• Verify the accuracy of the information from non-web sources before using in your research. Is the site edited well? Are there basic spelling or grammatical errors? Is it written for a specific audience? Does the information fit in with other sources you have found on the topic? Does the author use footnotes, citation, sources to verify its information?
• Is the website updated and maintained?
• How current is the information?
• Understand that "Last updated" could include simple stylistic changes, colors, or layout. Not necessarily content changes.

CONTENT  - Does the information meet your research needs?

• Is the information basic or advanced?
• Is coverage of the topic complete or does it leave out important information?
• Does it offer different perspectives?
• Is there a bibliography? Are the sources mentioned relevant and credible?
• How does the content compare to other resources on the topic?
• Does the site present fact or opinion?
• Is the purpose of the site to inform? To sell? To persuade?
• Does the site show multiple sides of an issue? Bias does not necessarily mean you must reject a source, but be sure that you can identify it.
• Who is the intended audience? Advanced researchers? Young students? Members of an organization?
• Is there advertising?

The information presented here was adapted from Iowa State University's  Evaluating Websites: Information Literacy Guide

The credibility of online information can be difficult to verify. We always recommend that you evaluate a website with the information provided in this guide, and not automatically rely on a website based on its domain name.

Common Domain types

.com       Most common domain, anyone can create a website using this

.gov       Generally used for government sites

.edu       Associated with an academic institution. Still use caution, sometimes student work can be represented on .edu sites

.org       Initially created for organizations and associations. Use caution, anyone can use to put out information

.net       Common domain name, anyone can use to put out information

• << Previous: Articles and Databases
• Next: Citing Sources in APA 7th ed. >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 3:03 PM
• URL: https://csub.libguides.com/education

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Suicide rates among...

Suicide rates among physicians compared with the general population in studies from 20 countries: gender stratified systematic review and meta-analysis

Linked editorial.

Doctors and suicide

• Related content
• Peer review
• 1 Department of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
• 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
• 3 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
• 4 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
• Correspondence to: E Schernhammer eva.schernhammer{at}muv.ac.at ( @EvaSchernhammer on X)
• Accepted 10 June 2024

Objectives To estimate age standardised suicide rate ratios in male and female physicians compared with the general population, and to examine heterogeneity across study results.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources Studies published between 1960 and 31 March 2024 were retrieved from Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO. There were no language restrictions. Forward and backwards reference screening was performed for selected studies using Google Scholar.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Observational studies with directly or indirectly age standardised mortality ratios for physician deaths by suicide, or suicide rates per 100 000 person years of physicians and a reference group similar to the general population, or extractable data on physician deaths by suicide suitable for the calculation of ratios. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies. Mean effect estimates for male and female physicians were calculated based on random effects models, with subgroup analyses for geographical region and a secondary analysis of deaths by suicide in physicians compared with other professions.

Results Among 39 included studies, 38 studies for male physicians and 26 for female physicians were eligible for analyses, with a total of 3303 suicides in male physicians and 587 in female physicians (observation periods 1935-2020 and 1960-2020, respectively). Across all studies, the suicide rate ratio for male physicians was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.22). For female physicians, the rate ratio was significantly higher at 1.76 (1.40 to 2.21). Heterogeneity was high for both analyses. Meta-regression revealed a significant effect of the midpoint of study observation period, indicating decreasing effect sizes over time. The suicide rate ratio for male physicians compared with other professions was 1.81 (1.55 to 2.12).

Conclusion Standardised suicide rate ratios for male and female physicians decreased over time. However, the rates remained increased for female physicians. The findings of this meta-analysis are limited by a scarcity of studies from regions outside of Europe, the United States, and Australasia. These results call for continued efforts in research and prevention of physician deaths by suicide, particularly among female physicians and at risk subgroups.

Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019118956.

Introduction

In 2019, suicide caused over 700 000 deaths globally, which was more than one in every 100 deaths that year (1.3%). While the worldwide age standardised suicide rate was estimated at 9.0 per 100 000 population, there was great variation between individual countries (from <2 to >80 suicide deaths per 100 000). 1 The overall global decline in suicide rates by 36% since 2000 is not a universal trend because some countries like the United States or Brazil saw an increase of roughly the same magnitude. 1 2 Among many other social and environmental factors, occupation has been shown to influence suicide risk beyond established risk factors such as low socioeconomic status or educational attainment. 3 4 5 6 7

Physicians are one of several occupational groups linked to a higher risk of death by suicide, and the medical community has a longstanding and often conflicted history in addressing this issue. 8 A JAMA editorial from 1903 reviewed annual suicide numbers for US physicians and concluded that their suicide risk is higher compared with the general population. 9 A substantial amount of evidence has been accumulated globally in the 120 years since then, providing more insight on the topic and the challenges involved in its assessment. Most earlier research reported higher suicide rates for male and female physicians compared with the general population, and the mean effect estimates from the first meta-analysis in 2004 indicated a significantly increased standardised mortality ratio (SMR) of 1.41 for male physicians and 2.27 for female physicians. 10 This meta-analysis included 22 studies on suicide in physicians with observation periods between 1910 and 1998 and revealed some heterogeneity among study results, which was partly explained by the decline in risk over time. Similarly, another meta-analysis that included nine studies with observation periods between 1980 and 2015 reported a significantly decreased SMR of 0.68 for male physicians and a significantly increased SMR of 1.46 for female physicians. 11

In addition to publication year, several other factors could potentially drive heterogeneity between the published studies. Methodological differences in study design, outcome measures, and level of age standardisation could explain heterogeneity between studies. Furthermore, individual countries and world regions have varying levels of stigma about suicide in general and among physicians in particular, associated with different risks of underreporting, access to support systems, and generally different training and working conditions.

In this study, we aimed to perform an appraisal of the currently available evidence on suicide deaths in male and female physicians compared with the general population. We also aimed to explore heterogeneity by considering a broader spectrum of potential covariates. We hypothesise that suicide rate ratios for male and female physicians have declined over time, but gender differences persist and suicide risk remains increased for female physicians.

Search strategy and study selection

This meta-analysis was conducted based on recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration, 12 and is reported in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. 13 We searched for observational studies with data on suicide rates in physicians compared with the general population or similar using Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase. “Physician,” “mortality,” and “suicide” were entered as MeSH terms and text words and then connected through Boolean operators. The specific search strategy was developed and adapted for each database with the support of librarians from the Medical University of Vienna (supplement table S1). Following Schernhammer and Colditz, 10 we limited the search period to articles published after 1960 but updated it through to 31 March 2024. No constraints were placed on the language in which the reports were written, the region where study participants lived, or their age group. Articles published in languages other than English or German were screened with the help of the translation software DeepL 14 and colleagues fluent in these languages. Screening of the literature was done independently by two reviewers (CZ and SS). We also performed forward and backwards reference screening for the included articles and searched for unpublished data from sources and databases listed in included articles, such as the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the UK Office for National Statistics, Switzerland’s Federal Statistical Office, and Statistics Denmark.

We excluded studies that reported only on specific suicide methods in physicians, non-fatal suicidal behaviour or thoughts, mental health and burnout, and suicide prevention. We also excluded conference abstracts, editorials, case studies, and letters. Only reports with adequate data about physician deaths by suicide (not attempts) were eligible.

At the full text screening stage, we decided to only include rate based outcome measures that compare the suicide mortality in a physician population with the suicide mortality in a reference population. This includes the indirectly standardised mortality ratio (SMR), directly standardised rate ratio (SRR), and the comparative mortality figure. Even though their formulas and recommended uses differ and might yield slightly different results when calculated for the exact same population, 15 it can be argued that they are comparable estimates for the purpose of meta-analysing suicide deaths in physicians compared with a reference population. We also included rate ratios, even though their level of age standardisation is typically less detailed and only comprises one age group (with lower or upper age cutoff points). However, the proportionate mortality ratio expresses a different concept (the cause specific SMR divided by the all cause SMR, or the rate of suicides in all physician deaths divided by the rate of suicides in all population deaths). This outcome measure is not suitable for calculation of combined estimates with SMRs, especially in target populations with higher general life expectancy like physicians, 16 and was therefore not included. We also excluded studies that reported odds ratios and relative risk calculations because these are not based on rates.

We avoided overlapping time periods of the same geographical regions among included studies so that any physician death by suicide would only be counted once towards the pooled result. In case of overlaps, only one study was included, and the decision of which to include was based on three criteria in sequential order: sample size (higher number of observed suicides); risk of bias (lower risk of bias based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies); and recentness (more recent midpoint of observation period). We also excluded studies that only reported overall (and not gender stratified) suicide ratios, only covered physician subgroups (eg, medical specialties), or did not meet minimum requirements for sample size (ie, an expected number of one suicide). When necessary information for inclusion was missing from eligible studies or the source of data was unclear, we contacted the authors. We excluded studies if the necessary information could not be obtained. A detailed list of excluded references including reason for exclusion can be found in the supplement (table S2).

Data extraction and risk of bias

Data extraction was conducted by two reviewers (CZ and SS) using a standardised table in Microsoft Excel. If studies did not include an SMR, but reported the numbers of observed (O) and expected (E) suicides or the necessary information to calculate them, the SMR was calculated by the reviewers (SMR=O/E). If the studies did not include an SRR or rate ratio, but reported (age standardised) suicide rates per 100 000 person years for physicians (R1) and a suitable reference population (R2) for a similar time period, the SRR or rate ratio was calculated (SRR=R1/R2, rate ratio=R1/R2). For one study, R1 and R2 were estimated from graphs. 17 Because not all studies reported confidence limits and the ones that did used different methods, we calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all studies based on Fisher’s exact test using observed and expected suicide numbers. For SRRs or rate ratios, we calculated the expected suicides by treating the SRR as an SMR (E=O/SRR). Standard errors were derived from the calculated 95% CIs by using the formula recommended for ratios in the Cochrane handbook (standard error=(ln upper CI limit – ln lower CI limit)/3.92). 12

In addition to variables relating to the main outcome, we extracted data on the following study characteristics to be used in sensitivity analyses: geographical location, observation period, age range, level of age standardisation, suicide classification, study design, and reference group. We used duplicate extraction and checked the final extraction table for errors to ensure accuracy.

Because there was no suitable validated scale to assess the quality of observational studies on mortality ratios, we used the JBI checklist for prevalence studies 18 as a critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment. Out of nine questions on this checklist, three were deemed not applicable owing to the investigation of mortality rather than morbidity (see supplement table S3a). Two reviewers (CZ and SS) independently evaluated a subsample of the included studies and the JBI checklist was subsequently further specified to achieve clear criteria for risk of bias assessment (see supplement table S3b). The same two reviewers then independently evaluated all studies (supplement table S4a and S4b). Consistency in rating was high, disagreements were resolved through discussion. If all applicable items of the JBI checklist were rated positive, a study was classified as having low risk of bias. If at least one item was rated negative or unclear, a study was classified as having moderate or high risk of bias.

Data analysis

We performed separate meta-analyses of suicide rate ratios for male and female physicians. Random effects models were chosen a priori owing to the assumption that the included studies represent a random sample of different yet comparable physician populations with some heterogeneity in effect size. 19 Random effects models were calculated based on the Hartung-Knapp method (also known as the Sidik-Jonkman method). 20 Cumulative meta-analyses were performed to examine changes in the overall mean effect estimate over time. Heterogeneity was assessed by Q tests, I 2 , T 2 , and prediction intervals.

Begg and Egger tests were conducted to evaluate the possibility of publication bias, which was also assessed by funnel plot and trim-and-fill analysis. We performed sensitivity analyses using meta-regression (for single covariates and adjusted for study observation period midpoint), including binary variables for several study characteristics (see supplement table S5a and S5b): risk of bias (low risk v moderate or high risk studies), study design (registry based studies v others), outcome measures (SMR v others), level of age standardisation (detailed with several age groups used v others), suicide classification (narrow international classification of diseases (ICD) definition without deaths of undetermined intent v others), age range (studies with a cutoff point around retirement age v others), and reference group (general population v similar). We also performed meta-regressions for length of observation period and number of suicides. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess geographical differences in two categorisations: World Health Organization world regions (with studies from the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region for male and female physicians, only one study from the African Region for male physicians, and no studies from the South East Asian and Eastern Mediterranean Region) and most common study origin regions, reflecting the accumulation of reports from certain parts of the world (US, UK, Scandinavia, other European countries, rest of the world). We also used subgroups to calculate mean effect estimates in older and more recent studies. Two groups were formed based on the midpoint of study observation period, with one subgroup consisting of the 10 most recent studies, and another subgroup with the remaining studies. To accommodate for multiple testing, we adapted the level of significance to P<0.01 for all sensitivity analyses.

We conducted a secondary meta-analysis on suicide rates in physicians compared with another reference group that was more similar than the general population in terms of socioeconomic status. Studies were included if they provided data on deaths by suicide in physicians as well as a group of other professions with similar socioeconomic status (all other eligibility criteria remained the same).

All analyses were performed with Stata (version 17). This study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under CRD42019118956.

Patient and public involvement

Several authors of this paper have trained and worked as physicians, and lived through the loss of colleagues to suicide. Their firsthand experiences offered valuable insights similar to those typically provided by patients. Because of the highly methodical nature of a systematic review and meta-analysis, it was difficult to involve members of the public in most areas of the study design and execution. However, patient and public involvement representatives reviewed the manuscript after submission and offered suggestions on language, dissemination, and general improvements to increase its relevance to those affected by physician deaths by suicide.

Included studies

The initial literature search yielded 23 458 studies. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, we were left with 786 articles. Application of the inclusion criteria resulted in 75 reports and we found a further 22 potentially eligible studies through reference list and registry based searches. Full text screening resulted in 38 studies for male physicians and 26 for female physicians that were eligible for analyses ( fig 1 ). Because a few studies provided more than one effect estimate, 21 22 a total of 42 datasets (male physicians) and 27 datasets (female physicians) were used for meta-analysis ( table 1 and table 2 ).

Flowchart showing study selection

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Characteristics of included studies on male physicians

• View inline

Characteristics of included studies on female physicians

Meta-analyses

The meta-analysis on suicide deaths in male physicians ( fig 2 ) produced a mean effect estimate of 1.05 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.22). The Q test was highly significant (Q=460.2, df=41, P<0.001), and the I 2 of 94% indicated that a high proportion of variance in the observed effects was caused by heterogeneity in true effects compared with sampling error. The variance of true effect size estimated with T 2 was 0.216, the standard deviation T was 0.465. The resulting prediction interval ranged from 0.41 to 2.72, which indicates that in 95% of all comparable future studies in male physician populations, the true effect size will fall in this interval. This finding reflects a high level of dispersion, suggesting that the suicide rates are decreased in some male physician populations but increased in others compared with the general population. Meta-regression confirmed calendar time (measured by midpoint of study observation period) as a highly significant covariate (β=−0.015, P<0.001), with an adjusted R 2 indicating an explained proportion of 52% of between-study variance.

Forest plot of suicide rate ratios for male physicians compared with general population

The mean effect estimate for suicide deaths in female physicians ( fig 3 ) was 1.76 (95% CI 1.40 to 2.21). The Q test for heterogeneity was highly significant (Q=143.2, df=26, P<0.001), and the I 2 of 84% indicated a high proportion of variance caused by heterogeneity in true effects, with T 2 estimated at 0.278 and T at 0.523. The prediction interval ranged from 0.58 to 5.35, so the dispersion of the true effect size across studies on female physicians was also substantial, ranging from decreased suicide rates in some female physician populations to considerably increased rates in others. The midpoint of study observation period also showed a highly significant association with the pooled estimate in a meta-regression (β=−0.024, P<0.001), explaining 87% of between-study variance.

Forest plot of suicide rate ratios for female physicians compared with general population

A decrease in suicide rate ratios over time is shown by cumulative meta-analyses (supplement figure S1a and S1b). A decline in pooled estimates is observed for female physicians throughout all studies, and a decline for studies with midpoints of observation period after 1985 can be seen for male physicians.

Further analyses

We performed sensitivity analyses across all studies using meta-regression. We did not observe any significant (P<0.01) results for male or female physicians, for study design, outcome measures, level of age standardisation, suicide classification, age range, reference group, length of observation period, and number of suicides. We found a significant association between risk of bias and effect size for male (β=−0.475, P=0.001) and female (β=−0.601, P=0.003) physicians, but when adjusting for midpoint of observation period, this association was no longer significant.

Egger test and Begg test gave no evidence of publication bias for studies on male or female physicians. The funnel plots showed no asymmetry, although they did reflect the high heterogeneity between studies (figure S2a and S2b). The non-parametric trim-and-fill analyses imputed no studies for male or female physicians, therefore no difference in effect size was found for observed versus observed plus imputed studies.

We also performed subgroup analyses based on geographical study location in two different categorisations: WHO world regions and most common study origin regions. With both analyses, the decrease in effect sizes over time was visible in most subgroups, and lower effect sizes were observed especially in studies from Asian countries (supplement figures S3a, S3b, S4a, and S4b). This finding translates to lower overall suicide rates for male physicians in the Western Pacific Region of 0.61 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.04), or similarly, for studies outside of Europe and the US with 0.69 (0.45 to 1.06). This pattern was not observed for female physicians, although the suicide rate ratio for the Western Pacific Region (1.06, 0.34 to 3.32) was also the lowest compared with all other subgroups.

Given that calendar time has been shown to have a strong association with effect size, we also performed a subgroup analysis of the 10 most recent studies versus all older studies. For male physicians (supplement figure S5a), the mean effect estimate in the subgroup of 32 older datasets was increased at 1.17 (0.96 to 1.41), whereas in the subgroup of the 10 most recent studies it was significantly decreased at 0.78 (0.70 to 0.88). For female physicians (supplement figure S5b), the mean suicide rate ratio in the subgroup of 17 older studies was significantly increased at 2.21 (1.63 to 3.01). In the subgroup of the 10 most recent studies, the mean effect was still significantly increased at a lower level of 1.24 (1.00 to 1.55).

Secondary meta-analysis

We conducted another meta-analysis on suicide rates in physicians compared with other professions of similar socioeconomic status and identified eight studies that compared male physicians with a reference group of other academics, other professionals, other health professionals, or members of social class I (supplement figure S6 and table S6). The pooled effect estimate was significantly increased at 1.81 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.12). The Q test (Q=17.6, df=7, P=0.01) was significant, but the I 2 of 58% and the prediction interval of 1.15 to 2.87 indicated a lower level of heterogeneity compared with the main analysis, and a more similar effect size across studies. We found five studies on female physicians (supplement table S6). The results of these studies appeared similar to those for male physicians, but we deemed the number of eligible studies too low for a random effects meta-analysis. 62

In this meta-analysis summarising the available evidence on physician deaths by suicide, we found the rate ratio for female physicians to be significantly raised, but not for male physicians. This result confirmed our hypothesis that mean effect estimates would be lower than in a previous meta-analysis on the subject published in 2004. 10 Calendar time was identified as a significant covariate in both analyses, indicating decreasing suicide rate ratios for physicians over time. The high level of heterogeneity in results from different studies suggests that suicide risk for male and female physicians is not consistent across various physician populations. Therefore, the pooled effect estimate is only of limited use in describing the overall suicide risk for physicians compared with the general population. In a secondary meta-analysis, the suicide rate ratio of male physicians was shown to be significantly raised when other professional groups with similar socioeconomic status were used as a reference group, with less heterogeneity across study results.

Strengths and limitations of this study

We did not impose any language restrictions on our search strategy so that relevant studies from different geographical regions were found. Consequently, we were able to include a large number of studies from 20 countries providing overall and recent summary estimates based on a complete assessment of the available evidence. This study also explored a range of covariates as potential causes for heterogeneity.

Several weaknesses should also be mentioned. Underreporting of suicide deaths might be more common for physicians compared with the general population, 8 influencing ratios between those two populations in the original studies. Despite the large number of included reports, several geographical regions are still underrepresented in the available evidence, which limits the generalisability of findings.

Comparison with other studies

A systematic review on physician deaths by suicide included a meta-analysis of studies with observation periods between 1980 and 2015, 11 but found only nine eligible studies (a third of which were already included in the first meta-analysis by Schernhammer and Colditz 10 ). This analysis was also subject to some methodological limitations, such as using a potentially arbitrary starting point for study observation periods and not accounting for overlap between included studies (therefore counting some physician deaths by suicide twice). Another systematic review and meta-analysis on physician and healthcare worker deaths by suicide included only one new study compared with Schernhammer and Colditz 10 and so did not provide an updated estimate. 63 Additionally, this analysis included a large US study that reported increased proportionate mortality ratios, impacting the pooled estimate for male physicians towards showing an effect.

Meaning of the study

The results of this study suggest that across different physician populations, the suicide risk is decreasing compared with the general population, although it remains raised for female physicians. The causes of this decline are unknown, but several factors might play a part. The critical appraisal of the included studies indicated better study quality among more recent studies, which might have contributed to the decrease in effect sizes over time. Meta-regression results by Duarte and colleagues suggested that the decrease in suicide risk in male physicians was driven by a reduction in the rate of suicide deaths in physicians rather than an increase in suicide deaths in the population. 11 This finding could mean that physicians have benefitted more from general or targeted suicide prevention efforts compared with the general population, which is testament to the repeated calls for more awareness and interventions to support the mental health of physicians. 64 65 Furthermore, the proportion of female physicians has increased over recent decades, and the average proportion of female physicians across all OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries reached 50% in 2021. 66 This change is likely to affect working conditions in a historically male dominated field that could be relevant to the mental health of workers. Some evidence exists that occupational gender composition affects the availability of workplace support and affective wellbeing, with higher support levels in mixed rather than male dominated occupations. 67 68

It is important to note, however, that considerable heterogeneity exists in the suicide risk of different physician populations that is still partly unexplained. Working as a physician is probably associated with different risk and protective factors across diverse healthcare systems, as well as training and work environments. Additionally, prevailing attitudes and stigma about mental health and suicide could vary. Societal influences on suicide rates over time might affect physicians differently compared with the general population (eg, mental health stigma might differ for physicians compared with the general population, and change at a different rate). Therefore, it seems plausible that the relation between suicide deaths in physicians compared with the general population differs between regions and countries.

Policy implications

Overall, this study highlights the ongoing need for suicide prevention measures among physicians. We found evidence for increased suicide rates in female physicians compared with the general population, and for male physicians compared with other professionals. Additionally, the decreasing trend in suicide risk in physicians is not a universal phenomenon. An Australian study found a substantial increase in suicide risk for female physicians, which doubled between 2001 and 2017. 58 The recent covid-19 pandemic has put additional strain on the mental health of physicians, potentially exacerbating risk factors for suicide such as depression and substance use. 69 70 Other important risk factors include suicidal ideation and attempted suicide, and their prevalence among physicians was estimated by a recent meta-analysis. The results suggest higher levels of suicidal ideation among physicians compared with the general population, whereas the prevalence of suicide attempts appeared to be lower. 71 This finding could indicate that suicidal intent in physicians is more likely to result in fatal rather than non-fatal suicidal behaviours. 72 A systematic review on mental illness in physicians concluded that a coordinated range of mental health initiatives needs to be implemented at the individual and organisational level to create workplaces that support their mental health. 73 Evidence exists for effective physician directed interventions, but hardly any research on organisational measures to address suicide risk in physicians. 74 Continued advances in organisational strategies for the mental wellbeing of physicians are essential to support individual medical institutions in their efforts to foster supportive environments, combat gender discrimination, and integrate mental health awareness into medical education and training.

Recommendations for future research

In addition to more primary studies from world regions other than Europe, the US, and Australia, future research also needs to systematically look into other factors beyond study characteristics that might explain the heterogeneity in suicide risk in physicians. Such research would help in identifying physicians who are at risk, with targeted prevention measures and ways to adapt them to different clinical and cultural contexts. Because geographical or national differences appear to be important factors, future studies on suicide risk in physicians should bear in mind that the specific settings of any physician population might influence their risk and resilience factors to a much higher degree than previously assumed. Other major events that affect healthcare, such as the covid-19 pandemic, could also have a large impact. Future research is needed to assess any covid-19 related effects on suicide rates in physicians around the world.

What is already known on this topic

Many studies reported increased suicide rates for physicians, and a 2004 meta-analysis found significantly increased suicide rates for male and female physicians compared with the general population

Evidence on increased suicide rates for physicians is inconsistent across countries

What this study adds

Suicide rate ratios for physicians appear to have decreased over time, but are still increased for female physicians

A high level of heterogeneity exists across studies, suggesting that suicide risk varies among different physician populations

Further research is needed to identify physician populations and subgroups at higher risk of suicide

Ethics statements

Ethical approval.

Not required.

Data availability statement

Additional data are available from the corresponding author at [email protected] upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support in developing the literature search strategy that was provided by the library staff at the Medical University of Vienna, and for the generous help with translations that was provided by a number of colleagues from within and outside of this institution. The authors also want to acknowledge the efforts undertaken by the Federal Statistics Office (Switzerland) and the Office for National Statistics (UK) to provide original data that were used in this analysis. Furthermore, the authors thank Eduardo Vega who reviewed the paper after submission as a member of the public, as well as Lena Hübl and Klaus Michael Fröhlich who provided their perspectives as physicians.

Contributors: CZ, SS, and ES conceived and designed the study, HH and TN contributed and advised on methodological aspects. CZ performed the literature search and was the first reviewer for article screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. SS was the second reviewer for article screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. CZ performed the statistical analyses and SS accessed and verified the underlying study data. CZ, SS, and ES interpreted the data. CZ drafted the manuscript and prepared tables and figures. All authors critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content and approved the final version. ES supervised the study. CZ is the study guarantor. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: This study was partially supported by the Vienna Anniversary Foundation for Higher Education (grant number H-303766/2019). The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or in writing or submitting the report. The researchers were independent from the funder and all authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: CZ received partial funding from the Vienna Anniversary Foundation for Higher Education for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Transparency: The lead author (the manuscript’s guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as originally planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities: The authors plan to disseminate the study findings through conference presentations, talks, press releases, social media, and in mandatory courses on mental wellbeing for medical students. The results will also be forwarded to national and international organisations that the authors have had contact with, to be disseminated both within these organisations and through their communication channels. This includes organisations in the field of mental health, public health, suicide prevention, and professional associations (for physicians and medical students); examples include the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the International Association for Suicide Prevention and particularly its Special Interest Group on Suicide and the Workplace, the Canadian Medical Association, the Austrian Public Health Association, and the Austrian Medical Chamber. Discussions on how these findings might be used in local and national suicide prevention efforts in Austria will involve physicians, hospital administrators, mental and occupational health professionals, and interested members of the public who are affected by suicidality among physicians.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

• ↵ World Health Organization. Suicide worldwide in 2019: global health estimates. Published online 2021. Accessed 12 Sep 2023. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240026643
• Turecki G ,
• Gunnell D ,
• Mortensen PB ,
• Nordentoft M
• de Gelder R ,
• Kapadia D ,
• Øien-Ødegaard C ,
• Spittal MJ ,
• LaMontagne AD
• Roberts SE ,
• Jaremin B ,
• Schernhammer ES ,
• El-Hagrassy MM ,
• Couto TCE ,
• ↵ Cochrane. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.3. Published 2022. Accessed 19 Jul 2023. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
• Liberati A ,
• Altman DG ,
• Tetzlaff J ,
• ↵ Deep L. DeepL Translator. Accessed 19 Jul 2023. https://www.DeepL.com/translator
• ↵ Windsor-Shellard B. Suicide by Occupation, England: 2011 to 2015 . Office for National Statistics; 2017. Accessed 17 Sep 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/suicidesbyoccupationengland2011to2015
• Stefansson CG ,
• ↵ Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Chapter 5: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis . 2020. Accessed 19 Jul 2023. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
• ↵ Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis . Wiley; 2021. https://www.google.at/books/edition/Introduction_to_Meta_Analysis/2oYmEAAAQBAJ
• IntHout J ,
• Ioannidis JP ,
• ↵ Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Occupational Mortality 1979-80, 1982-83, Decennial Supplement, Part I+II. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1986.
• Friese CR ,
• Lindhardt M ,
• Frandsen E ,
• Hamtoft H ,
• Pitts FN Jr .
• Dean G. The causes of death of South African doctors and dentists. Afr Med J . Published online 1969.
• Revicki DA ,
• Feuerlein W
• Richings JC ,
• Arnetz BB ,
• Hedberg A ,
• Theorell T ,
• Allander E ,
• Rimpelä AH ,
• Nurminen MM ,
• Pulkkinen PO ,
• Rimpelä MK ,
• Tokudome S ,
• Nishizumi M ,
• Kuratsune M
• Schlicht SM ,
• Gordon IR ,
• Christie DG
• Iwasaki A ,
• Lindeman S ,
• Hirvonen J ,
• Lönnqvist J
• Rafnsson V ,
• Gunnarsdottir HK
• Mosbech J ,
• Clements A ,
• Sakarovitch C ,
• Hostettler M ,
• Baburin A ,
• Meltzer H ,
• Griffiths C ,
• Petersen MR ,
• Aasland OG ,
• Haldorsen T ,
• Palhares-Alves HN ,
• Palhares DM ,
• Laranjeira R ,
• Nogueira-Martins LA ,
• Claessens H
• Schwenk TL ,
• Davidson JE ,
• Herrero-Huertas L ,
• Andérica E ,
• FSO (Federal Statistics Office) Switzerland. Data request for physician suicide data. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home.html
• FMH (Foederatio Medicorum Helveticorum). Online-tool for the physician statistics of the Swiss Medical Association (FMH), data for 2008-2020. https://aerztestatistik.fmh.ch/
• ONS (Office for National Statistics) UK. Suicide by Occupation in England: 2011 to 2015 and 2016 to 2020. Published 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/adhocs/13768suicidebyhealthcarerelatedoccupationsengland2011to2015and2016to2020registrations
• Zeritis S ,
• Phillips M ,
• Zimmermann C ,
• Strohmaier S ,
• Niederkrotenthaler T ,
• Schernhammer E
• Rothman K, Boyce J. Epidemiologic Analysis with a Programmable Calculator . Vol NIH Publication No. 79-1649. National Institutes of Health; 1979. Accessed 13 Sep 2023. https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/3978444
• Pitts FN Jr . ,
• Schuller AB ,
• Dutheil F ,
• Pereira B ,
• Goldman ML ,
• Bernstein CA
• ↵ OECD. Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. OECD Publ . Published online 2023. doi: 10.1787/7a7afb35-en OpenUrl CrossRef
• ↵ Frank E, Dingle AD. Self-reported depression and suicide attempts among U.S. women physicians. Am J Psychiatry . Published online 1999. Accessed 25 Jun 2018. https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.156.12.1887
• Harvey SB ,
• Epstein RM ,
• Glozier N ,
• Crawford J ,
• Baker STE ,

University Libraries

• Florida State University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Evaluating Non-Peer Reviewed Sources
• Finding Articles
• Reading Scholarly Articles
• Citation Guide

Fact-Checking Tools

• FactCheck.org This site is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters maintained by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
• SciCheck FactCheck.org’s SciCheck feature focuses exclusively on false and misleading scientific claims that are made by partisans to influence public policy. It was launched in January 2015 with a grant from the Stanton Foundation.
• Duke Reporters' Lab This fact-checking website from Duke University acts as an aggregator of the different fact-checkers around the world. According to Duke, there are currently 114 active fact-checkers in the world.

Image Checking Tools

• Google Image Search You can do a reverse image search in Google Image. Google Image is especially useful for identifying the author/artist of an image and for finding similar images so that you can see how they were used. It's also pretty good at showing you previous uses of the image online.
• TinEye Reverse Image Search TinEye is good at showing how long and how often an image has been available (or has been used online). You can also see how an image has been edited for use by different people online.

Website Evaluation

When evaluating online resources, it's hard to let go of our own biases. However, often Fake News can be used as a tool to keep those biases in check. Learning to look deeper using tools presented in this research guide is the first step. You don't have to agree with everything that you read, but sometimes making the best case you can for a perspective or argument that conflicts with your own beliefs and perceptions will help you make your own arguments better.

Chainsawsuit comic by Kris Straub, from Sept. 16, 2014

Inform Your Thinking Video

Attribution: Oklahoma State University Libraries Inform Your Thinking Series

How to Spot Fake News

What is fake news.

Fake news is content generated by non-news organizations in order to drive eyeballs to ads or to spread information that is neither sourced or supported by facts. Fake news is not news that does not align with your political views.

Examples of fake news sources aggregated by CBS ( link )

• How to Spot Fake News This short YouTube video provides some quick tips and tricks on how to check new stories with real life examples.

Why should you care about Fake News?

1. Fake news destroys your credibility . If your research uses made up or false information, you may fail a course or have your research rejected. If your arguments are built on bad information, people may not believe you in future conversations.

2. Fake news can hurt you , and a lot of other people. Purveyors of fake and misleading medical advice can perpetuate myths. These websites or blogs spread dangerous lies

3. Real news can benefit you . If you want to buy stock in a company, you want to read accurate articles about that company so you can invest wisely. If you are planning on voting in an election, you want to read valid and factual information on a candidate so you can vote for the person who best represents your ideas and beliefs.

4. You deserve the truth. You are smart enough to make up your own mind - as long as you have the real facts in front of you. You can learn to critically evaluate online resources to find the facts.

Types of Fake News

Bias : Sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts. 

Clickbait : Outrageous headlines and stories designed to get readers to click open links to a particular webpage. Also referred to as a strategically placed hyperlink. Often uses exaggeration, questionable headlines, misleading social media descriptions, or fictitious images.

Confirmation Bias: When researchers or students seek out information that only confirms their existing beliefs. 

Hoax News : Sources that intentionally fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or distort actual news reports.

Parody/Satire : Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to comment on current events. While they often use false headlines, they are created to poke fun at current events or people, not to convince readers that the information is true.

Rumor Mill : Sources that focus on rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unverified claims.

• << Previous: Reading Scholarly Articles
• Next: Citation Guide >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 2:25 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.fsu.edu/PSB3004C

© Florida State University Libraries | 116 Honors Way | Tallahassee, FL 32306 | (850) 644-2706

• Check your connection Move closer to your router, connect to a faster network, or plug in via ethernet.
• Check your computer Close extra browser tabs, quit other applications, or restart your computer.
• Try our other tips When all else fails, contact us or visit our Help Center for more information.

• Introduction
• Scopus AI Demo and Deep Dive, Adrian Raudaschl, (English)
• Q&A Session by Adrian Raudaschl, Wael Mansour, Mohamed Raed (Arabic)
• Interactive Q&A Session and Demo Wael Mansour, Mohamed Raed (Arabic)
• Closing Remarks