peer reviewed research svenska

Är artikeln peer reviewed?

Peer review är en process där vetenskapliga publikationer läses och granskas av ämnesexperter innan de accepteras för publicering. Sammanfattningsvis kan man säga att det är en form av kvalitetsgranskning som säkrar att den publicerade forskningen håller en hög standard. 

Det finns olika sätt att se om en artikel är peer-reviewed (expertgranskad):

• På tidskriftens webbplats. Informationen kan finnas t e x under rubriker som ”Journal Information” eller ”About the journal”. Men hittar man ingen information där behöver det inte nödvändigtvis betyda att artikeln inte är peer-reviewed, det finns fler sätt att gå vidare för att kontrollera detta.  Tänk också på att tidskrifter innehåller generellt ett antal olika dokumenttyper. Ledare, brev, nyheter och kommentarer utgör en del av de dokumenttyper som kan inkluderas i en tidskrift utan att ha genomgått en strukturerad peer-review process. 
• Ett andra sätt att se om en artikel är peer-reviewed eller inte är att söka upp tidskriften i databasen Ulrichsweb som innehåller detaljerad information om över 300 000 tidskrifter av olika typer. Ulrichweb är tillgänglig via vår databaslista. När du sökt fram en tidskrift finns det en flik som heter ”Additional title details” där det kan finnas information om en tidskrift är peer-reviewed. Detta illustreras antingen genom att det står ”refereed” eller "peer-reviewed". Dock gäller samma sak här som ovan, det vill säga att, även om det inte står något om peer-review behöver det inte nödvändigtvis betyda att tidskriften inte är peer-reviewed.
• Ett tredje sätt att undersöka huruvida en artikel är peer-reviewed eller inte är att det i vissa databaser finns en möjlighet att avgränsa sig till peer-review. PubMed har tyvärr ingen funktion där information om peer-review förekommer. De flesta tidskrifter i PubMed är peer-reviewed men vill man vara säker på om en tidskrift är peer-reviewed får man ta reda på detta genom att gå till någon annan källa. En databas som erbjuder information om peer-review är CINAHL .

På en hel del artiklar står det något i stil med ”Accepted” eller ”Submitted”, följt av ett datum. I många fall har dessa artiklar genomgått peer-review, men det är ingen absolut garanti för att så är fallet. Det kan betyda att artikeln blivit accepterad för publicering utan att ha gått igenom en peer-review process. En sista möjlig utväg är att kontakta tidskriften eller förlaget och be dem svara på om tidskriften och artikeln ifråga är peer-reviewed.  

Information om 300 000 tidskrifter och e-tidskrifter med innehållsförteckningar, dagstidningar, nyhetsblad, med mera.

Om du vill att vi ska kontakta dig angående din feedback, var god ange dina kontaktuppgifter i formuläret nedan

• For students

View your schedule and courses

Edit content at umu.se

• Find courses and programmes
• Library search tool
• Search the legal framework

Scholarly articles and other publications

As a student, you will come across different types of academic texts. Here you can find information on how to recognise scholarly articles and many other publications. You can also read about how the peer review system works.

Various types of scholarly publications

Publishing and disseminating research are essential parts of the scientific process. The type of publications differs from one discipline to another. In medicine, it is common for researchers to write articles and publish them in scientific journals, while in the humanities, researchers more often write books (monographs) or chapters in anthologies. Other scientific publications include theses, conference papers, and research reports.

Knowing the difference between different research publications makes understanding what you have found when looking for material for your projects easier. It also makes it easier to refer to your sources correctly and to use them in the appropriate context.

Can I find research in non-scholarly publications?

Research results can also be presented in non-scholarly texts and publications. For example

• popular science books
• articles in newspapers
• debate articles in newspapers
• articles in popular science journals
• articles on websites.

These texts are considered second-hand sources. Sometimes they are written by the researcher and sometimes by others, such as communicators or science journalists. This type of text is often aimed at the general public.

Read more about judging whether a text is scholarly and credible: Evaluation of sources

Scholarly articles

Scholarly articles present the results of research studies and are written by researchers and doctoral students. The primary target audience is other researchers. Often the researchers aim to share their research internationally. This means that scholarly articles often

• contains technical terms and specialised language
• are written in English.

For an article to be considered scholarly, it must

• be published in a scientific journal
• have undergone peer review.

How do I recognise a scholarly article?

Many scholarly articles follow a standardised format called IMRaD, which stands for

• introduction
• material and method
• results and
• discussion.

In addition to these sections, references to the material referred to in the article are always included. The article often begins with a short abstract that you can use to decide whether the article is interesting to read in full.

Various types of scholarly articles

Original articles

In original articles, researchers present the results of their research. The results should be primary and based on the researcher's or research group's data collection.

Review articles

In review articles, researchers evaluate other studies and try to summarise the state of knowledge in an area. Review articles can vary in scope, but the focus is often on current literature. In a review article, the researchers have not conducted a study of their own. The results are instead based on a review of other articles.

Review articles sometimes present meta-analyses, which means that the researchers have statistically weighted the results of several other studies. This is common in medicine and in evaluating the effectiveness of drugs or treatments.

Articles that develop theories and methods

In theoretical articles, the researchers have not collected any data but try to develop new theories or methods based on existing theories and research.

A scholarly article is peer-reviewed before publication

A common feature of scholarly articles is that they are critically reviewed by other subject experts (referees) before they are accepted for publication. This is known as peer review. It is usually carried out by one or more researchers in the same field as the authors.

How does the peer review process work?

The review process varies from journal to journal, but a common approach is as follows:

• The researchers (article authors) submit a draft article to a journal.
• An editor of the journal assesses whether the article is interesting in terms of subject matter and whether it meets the basic requirements of language and content.
• The editor either rejects the draft or sends it for peer review.
• The reviewers assess the quality of the draft and the need for changes. Comments are then submitted to the editor.
• The editor either rejects the draft or suggests that the article authors make changes based on the reviewers' comments.
• Once the authors have submitted a revised version, the process is repeated until the editor either rejects or accepts the draft for publication.

Blind and double-blind review

The review should be as objective as possible and preferably not influenced by personal relationships between the reviewer and the author. To avoid pressure or bias, the review may be "blind" or "double-blind":

• If the review is blind, the authors do not know who is reviewing the manuscript.
• If the review is double-blind, both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous to each other.

A double-blind review is seen as better than a single-blind because the reviewer is not, or to a lesser extent, influenced by bias or preconceptions of the authors as individuals. Double-blind reviews might reduce the risk of discrimination based on gender and ethnicity.

Weaknesses of the peer review system

Since the reviewers are experts in the same field of research as the authors, they might also be competitors. This can make it difficult for reviewers to be impartial and anonymous. The smaller the research field, the more difficult to maintain anonymity. Although the peer review system has flaws, it is accepted as the best review system available today. A movement towards increased review transparency is currently underway to improve the review process.

Open peer review

Some publishers and journals are moving towards a more open review of articles to create increased transparency in the peer review process. The degree of openness may vary between journals but often involves openness in one or more of these three aspects:

• transparency about the identity of reviewers
• transparency in the review process where the reviewer's comments and the authors' responses are published with the article
• that the article is posted for open review so that anyone can review and comment on it.

Preprints (unreviewed versions of articles)

It is becoming increasingly common for researchers to make available a so-called preprint of their article before it has been reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. This means that the content of this version of the article is scientifically sound but not fact-checked.

Scholarly journals

Scholarly articles are usually published in scholarly journals by scientific publishers or associations. These journals often focus on a particular subject area and sometimes on a particular geographical region.

How do I know if a journal is scholarly?

On the journal's website, you can find information about the publisher, whether there is an editor (or editorial board) and whether the articles are peer-reviewed.

When searching for articles in databases or the library's search service, you can use features to limit your search to certain types of articles or scholarly journals. In the library search tool, you can select the "Peer-reviewed" filter to get hits only from journals with a peer review system.

Read more about evaluating different sources: Evaluation of sources

Tools for evaluating journals

Ulrichsweb - information about journals

Ulrichsweb is a service that collects detailed information about journals. Journals with a peer review system are listed in Ulrichsweb as "Refereed". In addition, you will find information about the journal's title, publisher, country, ISSN, format and whether the journal is active or discontinued.

More ways to evaluate journals

There are more ways to assess the quality and impact of journals. These methods are mainly used to compare different journals with each other and to analyse scholarly communication, but they can also be used as a quick way to determine whether a journal is scholarly. If the journal is included in Journal Citation Reports, Scopus Sources or the Norwegian register for scientific journals, it is scholarly.

Impact factors and journal rankings (Norwegian List, Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Sources)

The transformation of scholarly journals

The publication of scholarly journals has changed a lot over time.

• Previously, the journals were published in printed form, but today most of the journals are fully digital.
• The trend is from a subscription-based approach to open access content.
• Open access means that there is no cost to the reader to access the content. Instead, the cost of publishing is borne by the researcher or the institution.
• There is also a trend towards publishing research directly on a publishing platform, without being part of a journal.
• When the journals were printed, it was important to know in which issue an article was published to be able to find it again. Nowadays, the journal issue is mainly used when referring to the article.

More about open access journals: Open access journals

Other scholarly publications

Scholarly books and book chapters

Researchers can publish their research in book form in either monographs or anthologies. A monograph is a book with a well-defined subject and often no more than one or two authors. An anthology is a book of stand-alone chapters written by different researchers on different aspects of a broader topic. Anthologies often have one or more editors who compile the content. Publishing in books is common for researchers in the humanities and social sciences.

Usually, there is no peer review of scholarly books, but other things show whether the book is scientific:

• the authors are scientists
• the book is published by a publisher that focuses on scientific literature
• an editor has reviewed and approved the contributions
• there are references to other scientific publications and a list of them
• the target audience of the book is mainly other subject experts.

In a doctoral level programme, the doctoral student writes a scientific work called a thesis. The doctoral studies lead to a licentiate or doctoral degree. A doctoral degree involves four years of postgraduate stud ies, while a licentiate degree is awarded after two years of postgraduate studies. Approximately eighty percent of all research degrees are doctoral.

There are two different types of doctoral theses:

• A monographic thesis is a coherent book in a defined subject area.
• A compilation thesis consists of several scientific articles written by the doctoral student. The articles are given a context with a comprehensive summary, (called “kappa” in Swedish), which presents theories, methods, and previous research.

Conference proceedings

Conference papers are texts in which researchers present their research to other researchers, often at an early stage of the research process. The written conference contribution complements a talk given by the researcher at a conference. The contribution may resemble a scholarly article, but sometimes it is more of a summary of the lecture. The results presented are often preliminary, and conference papers can thus reflect current and ongoing research.

Conference papers may be published as appendices to scholarly journals or in special conference proceedings. Some conferences peer review papers before publication.

Many conferences also offer the opportunity to participate with a poster presenting a research result or project in text and images. Posters are very brief and not peer-reviewed.

Research reports

A research report is written by a researcher or research team and presents the results of a study or assignment. The research report can be published either by the institution where the researchers work or by the authority or organisation that commissioned the researchers. You can recognise a report by the fact that it is part of a series of reports or contains the word report in the title. Research reports are rarely peer-reviewed before publication.

Search paths for various scholarly sources

In the library's search tool, you can search for various types of publications such as books, journals, articles, theses, and reports. If you are searching in a specific subject area, it may be better to go directly to a subject specific database. Publications published at Umeå University are collected in the university's publication database, DiVA.

The library search tool

Articles, databases and journals

DiVA - publications from Umu

Films about scholarly publications

How can the process with peer review look like when a researcher is about to publish his/her research?

About different types of publications and how to find scientific material for connecting previous research to your work.

Basic course in information search

In our open online course, you will learn how to find scientific articles and other material for your studies.

Basic search techniques

Use different search techniques to perform better searches in the library search tool and other databases.

In-depth search strategies

You can use more in-depth strategies to search for information – for example when writing an essay.

Evaluation of sources

How do you know if a source is scientific? Ask questions about the material!

Questions about information searching?

Do you feel lost among databases and scholarly publications? Visit our drop-in sessions or make an appointment for a tutorial and we will help you. You can also submit short questions via chat or the contact form or ask the staff at the information desk.

Drop-in and lectures for students

Visit our drop-in sessions and ask your questions about information searching and evaluation of sources.

Schedule a tutoring appointment

Make an appointment for personal tutoring when you need more help with information searching.

Contact the library

Do you have a quick question about information searching? Please use our contact form or chat feature.

Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training

Current Issue

Peer-reviewed research articles, effects of coaching on wellbeing, perception of inclusion, and study-interest, praktisk yrkesopplæring på nett: en case-studie av yrkesfaglæreres undervisningspraksis under covid-19-pandemien [practical vocational training on the internet: a case study of vocational teachers’ teaching practice during the covid-19 pandemic], a holistic student-centred guidance framework supports finnish vocational education and training students in building competence identity.

The Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training (NJVET) invites original, scholarly articles that discuss the vocational and professional education and training, of young people as well as adults, from different academic disciplines, perspectives and traditions. It encourages diversity in theoretical and methodological approach and submissions from different parts of the world.

All published research articles in NJVET are subjected to a peer review process based on two moments of selection: an initial editorial screening and a double-blind review by at least two anonymous referees. Clarity and conciseness of thought are crucial requirements for publication. NJVET previously had a policy of single-blind review. The present policy was introduced in 2015.

NJVET is published on behalf of  Nordyrk , a Nordic network for vocational education and training, and with support from  NOP-HS  and from  the Swedish Research Council .

NJVET accepts submissions in English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. To broaden the international readership, Nordic researchers are encouraged to submit and publish their contributions in English.

All articles in NJVET are open access and there are no submission charges or charges for article processing.

NJVET is included in DOAJ, the Directory of Open Access Journals. The journal is also accredited on level 1 according to the Norwegian accreditation of scientific journals, in the Finnish Publication Forum, and on Svenska listan - a register of peer-reviewed publication channels:

• Directory of Open Access Journals, DOAJ
• Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers
• The Finnish Publication Forum
• Svenska listan - a register of peer-reviewed publication channels

Call for papers:

NJVET has a continuous open call for papers within the aims and scope of the journal. In addition to this, there could be calls for contributions to special issues.

Upcoming publication of Special Issue on the cooperation between research, teaching and learning in VET

The relation and cooperation between on the one hand research on and in vocational education and training (VET) and on the other hand the teaching and learning in VET can be described as a theory and practice relation that can be challenging. It can also be seen as a way to make the research more relevant by identified needs and questions from vocational teachers.

The Special Issue aims to develop knowledge about the cooperation between research and education. Challenges in cooperation may be the role of the researcher in the educational context, the cooperation between researcher and vocational teachers or the process from defining the problem to implementing results. We especially welcome contributions that address questions such as: What is practice-based research? What´s in it for teachers and for researchers/the mutual benefit? What competence is required of the vocational teacher to be a part in practical research?

In collaboration with the editorial group of Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training , Susanne Gustavsson from University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Henriette Duch, VIA University College, Denmark, and Jóhannes Árnason, Akureyri Comprehensive College, Island, will act as guest editors. 

Read more about the special issue.

Upcoming publication of Special Issue on Vocational classroom research with a focus on teaching and learning in vocational education subjects

This Special Issue aims to develop knowledge about how teaching in the vocational classroom can create productive conditions for students’ vocational learning and the development of students’ vocational knowledge in vocational subject areas. Contributions will address vocational (subject) didactic perspectives on teaching and learning in the vocational classroom; for example, this may concern vocational learning and vocational knowledge, embodied and material aspects, writing in the vocational classroom, practice-based school research, feedback/assessment in vocational subjects, and the relationship between theory and practice.

In collaboration with the editorial group of Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Stig-Börje Asplund, together with Nina Kilbrink and Ann-Britt Enochsson, Karlstad University, are acting as guest editors. 

Make a Submission

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors

2011–2024 © NJVET – Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training ISSN: 2242-458X

NJVET is published under the auspices of Linköping University Electronic Press (LiU E-Press).

Platform and Workflow by OJS / PKP

• Center for Arts, Business & Culture
• Publications

Peer Reviewed Research Articles

• Wikberg, Erik and Strannegård, Lars (2014) "Selling by Numbers: The Quantification and Marketization of   the  Swedish Art World for Contemporary Art," Organizational Aesthetics: Vol. 3: Iss. 1, 19-41.
• Werr, A. & Strannegård, L. (2013). “Developing researching managers and relevant research – the ‘executive research programme’”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2013.774140.
• Näslund, L. and Pemer, F. (2012) “The appropriated language: dominant stories as a source of organizational inertia.” Human Relations 65(1): 89-110.
• Strannegård, L. & Strannegård, M. (2012). “Works of Art. Aesthetic Ambitions in Design Hotels”,  Annals of Tourism Research, Volume 39, Issue 4, October 2012, Pages 1995–2012.
• Wikberg, E. & Strannegård, L. (2012). “Demarcations and Dirty Money: Financing New Private Contemporary Art Institutions in Sweden”, Homo Oeconomicus, Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 95-118.
• Strannegård, L. & Dobers, P. (2010). “A Sustainable Identity”, Sustainable Development, No 3, April 2010.
• Dobers, P & Strannegård, L. (2009) Design for unsustainability. ReDe: Design Journal, Vol 1, No 1, pp 27-38.
• Johansson, M. and Näslund, L. (2009). "Welcome to Paradise. Customer experience design and emotional labour on a cruise ship." International Journal of Work Organization and Emotion 3(1): 40-55.
• Stenström, E (2008) ”What Turn Will Cultural Policy Take? The Renewal of the Swedish Model” in International Journal of Cultural Policy, Volume 14, Issue 1.
• Stenström, E. (2007) “Another Kind of Combine: Monogram and the Moderna Museet” in International Journal of Art History, Volume 76, Issue 1.
• Stenström, E. (2005) “I nöd och lust - om konstiga företag i en estetisk ekonomi”. Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidskrift, Nr 2.

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.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

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 April 2, 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, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

• SpringerLink shop

Peer Review

The majority of manuscripts that journal editors receive are unsolicited. Some journals, however, only accept papers that they have invited. Some manuscripts will be of extremely high quality, but others papers will be borderline in terms of the scope of the journal and quality of work. With any paper submitted you will have to decide whether this is what the readers want or need and this is where peer reviewers come in.

The quality of peer reviewers is extremely important to the quality of a journal. Peer review helps to uphold the academic credibility of a journal—peer reviewers are almost like intellectual gatekeepers to the journal as they provide an objective assessment of a paper and determine if it is useful enough to be published.

The importance of peer review

Peer reviewers do several things:

• They safeguard the relevance of the work to the journal
• They advise about important earlier work that may need to be taken into account
• They check methods, statistics, sometimes correct English and verify whether the conclusions are supported by the research.

However, the final decision as to whether an article is accepted or rejected is always down to the editor.

For more introductory information on peer review, see the peer reviewer academy here .

How to find reviewers

Similar to being a member of a journal’s editorial board, being a reviewer is considered to be a prestigious position and can therefore attract unsolicited requests. Ideally, you should source your own and have a pool of referees in a database with details of their specialist areas as well as some notes (e.g. number of times they have peer reviewed articles, quality and timekeeping).

Sourcing referees is one of the most difficult tasks as an editor. Sometimes you can use editorial board members, but they might not be the most suitable and there is arguably a perceived conflict of interest in having them review for the journal they are on the editorial board for.

To find potential peer reviewers you can check the reference list of the manuscript, which is always a good starting point. You can also run searches in SpringerLink to identify who is publishing regularly and recently in that field. On Web of Science, you can rank authors by number of publications in a particular subject, so you can determine who the most prominent researchers are.

It is also equally important to try and obtain a global perspective on a paper, so when narrowing down your list of potential peer reviewers try not to have them all from the same country; the same principle that applies to forming an editorial board . This is particularly important for medical journals as burden of disease and treatment patterns vary from country to country so it often adds value having an article reviewed by international peers.

Once you have found potential referees, it is important to check for any potential conflicts of interest, which include having published with the author recently, working with the author, or being sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that is developing a competitor drug. For rare and new areas this can sometimes be problematic because it may just be one research group who is working on that particular area. However, you can try and delegate to the editorial board for suggestions if there is any potential difficulty; double-blind refereeing, where an author’s identity and that of the referee is concealed, can work well in these circumstances to avoid any potential bias. Some journals ask authors to provide a list of potential peer reviewers; however they must not be from the same institution/research group as the author and they must not have published together—this must be made clear in the instructions to authors information . Again when considering potential referees that have been suggested by an author you should always run a check on PubMed or SpringerLink to attempt to eliminate any potential conflicts of interest.

Finally, once you have the names of your potential reviewers you need to find their contact details. Most of the time, if they have published recently, their latest article might have an email address or contact telephone number in the correspondence section. However, most of the time you will need to be quite proactive at using internet searches to obtain up-to-date contact details.

How to target and invite reviewers

It is common to use 2–3 peer reviewers per manuscript. Because it is always possible that some people may not be available or able to review, it is wise to target more than is required on each occasion (e.g. have five reviewers in mind and recruit three, then if one says no you have another two potentials). It is not unheard of for editors to have to invite seven or more reviewers in order to obtain two peer reviews, especially around holiday seasons. On the other hand, editors must also be mindful that local/regional holidays should not be used as a reason to keep authors waiting. For a potential author, every day is important. It is professional practice to notify authors and reviewers in advance of upcoming holidays/office closures etc., providing them with alternative means of contact during this time wherever practically possible.

Always use reviewers appropriate to the field, perhaps doing similar research; they are more likely to find the paper relevant and interesting, and to be qualified to provide feedback on its strengths and weaknesses. You should avoid asking reviewers who are reviewing other articles for the journal and/or currently writing an article; or those that have reviewed within the last month—the more they are overloaded the less likely they will be to say yes.

When approaching referees it is good practice to invite them prior to sending the full manuscript. The communication should contain the following elements:

• Title of paper and journal
• Abstract (if applicable)
• Manuscript number
• That their opinion would be very helpful
• Are they able to referee the manuscript within the timeframe
• Is it in their area of expertise
• Do they have any conflicts of interest?
• If they can’t review then can they recommend someone else?
• Deadline for response.

If they accept, then you should send the paper with clear instructions and a referee report form.

How to develop a useful reviewer database

Ideally you should aim to have a pool of referees in a database with details of their specialist areas and up-to-date contact details, as well as some notes on quality (i.e. number of times they have peer reviewed, how reliable they are, whether they peer review within the timescale, quality of their previous review(s)).

Some reviewers will write several pages of notes and even annotate and mark up manuscripts, others will produce one line reports that don’t help the editors make a decision. It is important to have this information available when selecting appropriate reviewers.

What programs and software are available

For smaller journals with relatively few submissions, a simple system (i.e. a spreadsheet) may be adequate, but for larger journals, electronic manuscript tracking systems can help to keep track of submissions and help to develop a reviewer database. Editorial Manager , is a web-based manuscript submission and review system that lets authors submit articles directly online. Editorial Manager makes it possible for authors to submit manuscripts via the Internet, provides online peer review services and tracks manuscripts through the entire review process. It also allows editors to communicate directly with authors and reviewers. Key features include automatic conversion of authors’ submissions into PDF format as well as supporting submissions in various file formats and special characters.

Clear instructions for reviewers

After a reviewer accepts your invitation to review a manuscript, the reply should include the article or a link to Editorial Manager and a template report form. They should be encouraged to make constructive comments and the template report form should have the following components:

• Deadline by which the review is wanted by (with the option of them proposing an alternative within a reasonable timeframe)
• Whether you want the review sent by email or uploaded to Editorial Manager
• Instructions on evaluation of quality
• Is it original work
• Is it well researched? Are the methods appropriate? Are the conclusions a fair representation of the results?
• Is all relevant previous research referenced?
• Recommendations
• Accept without changes (rare)
• Accept if revised, but doesn’t need re-review
• Revisions that need re-review by reviewer

If a submitted paper’s English is considered to not be up to the standards to be sent to a busy reviewer, then it is the editor’s responsibility to communicate this to the author and suggest that the article undergoes copyediting prior to resubmission.

Setting deadlines and sending reminders

The invitation correspondence needs to clearly state the deadline by which the review should be returned by. Two to three weeks is fairly standard and, given the difficulty in sometimes finding good reviewers, they should always be given the option of negotiating an alternative return by date. Reviewers can be busy people and gentle reminders are often required to chase them up for reviews. You may wish to develop template chaser emails containing the following elements:

• Title for paper
• That they had agreed to send a review on (manuscript number and title) by (date)
• Date they had agreed
• Date it was due by
• That their opinion is important
• Are they still able to review the manuscript
• Method by which it should be sent (email, electronic submission)
• Deadline response with a reminder that if you hear nothing you will have to approach alternative reviewers.

If you still get no reply, then consider approaching alternative reviewers from your list of back up reviewers.

Decision types: What they mean and communicating them to authors

Reviewer decisions are really just recommendations and they tend to fall into the following categories:

• Accept without any revisions
• Accept but on the condition that minor revisions will be done by the author (paper doesn’t need re-review)
• Revisions required that need re-review by reviewer

The decision should not be based on a poll of how many accepts and rejects and maybes the peer-reviewers gave. As an editor, you must verify what the reviewers have suggested and make the final decision. Sometimes reviewer comments may be very superficial and occasionally inappropriate. If there are situations where there are clear differences in opinions between reviewers then options include inviting another reviewer to make a final decision, or approaching an editorial board member.

Before sending the reviewer comments to an author it is good practice to edit and/or select the most constructive and relevant comments to make it clear to the author what the decision is and what might need to be done if their article needs revising.

Decisions tend to either be that the author needs to revise the manuscript or that the manuscript is rejected. Template emails are again useful here.

Request for revision should include statements as follows:

• Your paper has now been peer reviewed and attached (or below) please find the reviewer comments
• Please consider the comments and prepare a revised version of the manuscript plus a separate file with a point-by-point response to show how the comments have been addressed
• Deadline revisions are required by.

Rejection letters are hard to write, especially in situations when an author has revised the manuscript, sometimes several times, and it is always important to show respect for the time the author has spent writing and/or revising the manuscript. The elements of a rejection letter should include:

"Your paper has now been peer reviewed and the manuscript was considered to be unsuitable for publication in (journal name) for several reasons, such as:"

• The paper requires further experimentation to be complete
• The paper is a duplication of what others have already published and adds nothing substantial to what is already known
• The results don’t support the conclusions
• References are too old.

It is important that the rejection letter contains honest and constructive feedback. Equally, it is important that authors are not given false hope that if they make some revisions to the article then they can resubmit it to your journal if this is definitely not the case.

In cases of rejection due to plagiarism, the rejection letter should follow a different format and you should refer to COPE for flowcharts and template letters.

Working with reviewers

Similar to editorial board members, the role of a reviewer is a voluntary position and it is more about the prestige and honor of being a reviewer rather than other benefits.

Reviewers can be very busy people and so it is important to not overload them with work. If you know that the same person is also writing an article for the journal or reviewing another article, or has very recently reviewed an article within the last month, it would be sensible to avoid asking them again too soon—the more they are overloaded the less likely they will be to say yes. But, much of this depends on your working relationship with them.

In terms of setting deadlines for reviews, this depends on your internal deadlines; a month may be adequate or too long. It is important to be flexible and plan well in advance, especially for holiday periods, the end of the year is usually a difficult time to recruit reviewers and you always need to have at least one or two back-up reviewers on standby to contact if you have any problems in recruiting and/or hearing back from reviewers when you are working to a tight deadline.

If you have no response from a reviewer, despite one or two chaser emails, you should go ahead and invite an alternative reviewer and let the person who was originally invited know that they are no longer required on this occasion. There are many reasons why a reviewer may not respond to your emails and it is important to be polite and sensitive in your correspondence. The email should state that you understand that they are busy; however, due to time restrictions in meeting publication deadlines, on this occasion another reviewer has been recruited.

Sometimes reviewer comments can be quite scathing, or the quality of the review might be very superficial. Occasionally reviewers might be in direct competition with the author, want more of their own publications cited or have another agenda. Furthermore, peer reviewers might feel restricted and intimidated in what they say about a manuscript as they are worried about the potential repercussions of making negative comments.

Different refereeing systems have been developed, such as double-blind refereeing, where the author and the referee identities are masked as far as possible, which contrasts with open refereeing where the referee and the author know each others identity.

Conflicts of interest can exist with reviewers and you should aim to screen much of this out before you invite a reviewer. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

It is always polite to thank reviewers when they have spent the time reviewing an article. A personal email is often best and reviewers tend to be interested in what the overall decision was.

Peer review templates, expert examples and free training courses

Joanna Wilkinson

Learning how to write a constructive peer review is an essential step in helping to safeguard the quality and integrity of published literature. Read on for resources that will get you on the right track, including peer review templates, example reports and the Web of Science™ Academy: our free, online course that teaches you the core competencies of peer review through practical experience ( try it today ).

How to write a peer review

Understanding the principles, forms and functions of peer review will enable you to write solid, actionable review reports. It will form the basis for a comprehensive and well-structured review, and help you comment on the quality, rigor and significance of the research paper. It will also help you identify potential breaches of normal ethical practice.

This may sound daunting but it doesn’t need to be. There are plenty of peer review templates, resources and experts out there to help you, including:

Peer review training courses and in-person workshops

• Peer review templates ( found in our Web of Science Academy )
• Expert examples of peer review reports
• Co-reviewing (sharing the task of peer reviewing with a senior researcher)

Other peer review resources, blogs, and guidelines

We’ll go through each one of these in turn below, but first: a quick word on why learning peer review is so important.

Why learn to peer review?

Peer reviewers and editors are gatekeepers of the research literature used to document and communicate human discovery. Reviewers, therefore, need a sound understanding of their role and obligations to ensure the integrity of this process. This also helps them maintain quality research, and to help protect the public from flawed and misleading research findings.

Learning to peer review is also an important step in improving your own professional development.

You’ll become a better writer and a more successful published author in learning to review. It gives you a critical vantage point and you’ll begin to understand what editors are looking for. It will also help you keep abreast of new research and best-practice methods in your field.

We strongly encourage you to learn the core concepts of peer review by joining a course or workshop. You can attend in-person workshops to learn from and network with experienced reviewers and editors. As an example, Sense about Science offers peer review workshops every year. To learn more about what might be in store at one of these, researcher Laura Chatland shares her experience at one of the workshops in London.

There are also plenty of free, online courses available, including courses in the Web of Science Academy such as ‘Reviewing in the Sciences’, ‘Reviewing in the Humanities’ and ‘An introduction to peer review’

The Web of Science Academy also supports co-reviewing with a mentor to teach peer review through practical experience. You learn by writing reviews of preprints, published papers, or even ‘real’ unpublished manuscripts with guidance from your mentor. You can work with one of our community mentors or your own PhD supervisor or postdoc advisor, or even a senior colleague in your department.

Go to the Web of Science Academy

Peer review templates

Peer review templates are helpful to use as you work your way through a manuscript. As part of our free Web of Science Academy courses, you’ll gain exclusive access to comprehensive guidelines and a peer review report. It offers points to consider for all aspects of the manuscript, including the abstract, methods and results sections. It also teaches you how to structure your review and will get you thinking about the overall strengths and impact of the paper at hand.

• Web of Science Academy template (requires joining one of the free courses)
• PLoS’s review template
• Wiley’s peer review guide (not a template as such, but a thorough guide with questions to consider in the first and second reading of the manuscript)

Beyond following a template, it’s worth asking your editor or checking the journal’s peer review management system. That way, you’ll learn whether you need to follow a formal or specific peer review structure for that particular journal. If no such formal approach exists, try asking the editor for examples of other reviews performed for the journal. This will give you a solid understanding of what they expect from you.

Peer review examples

Understand what a constructive peer review looks like by learning from the experts.

Here’s a sample of pre and post-publication peer reviews displayed on Web of Science publication records to help guide you through your first few reviews. Some of these are transparent peer reviews , which means the entire process is open and visible — from initial review and response through to revision and final publication decision. You may wish to scroll to the bottom of these pages so you can first read the initial reviews, and make your way up the page to read the editor and author’s responses.

• Pre-publication peer review: Patterns and mechanisms in instances of endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis
• Pre-publication peer review: Can Ciprofloxacin be Used for Precision Treatment of Gonorrhea in Public STD Clinics? Assessment of Ciprofloxacin Susceptibility and an Opportunity for Point-of-Care Testing
• Transparent peer review: Towards a standard model of musical improvisation
• Transparent peer review: Complex mosaic of sexual dichromatism and monochromatism in Pacific robins results from both gains and losses of elaborate coloration
• Post-publication peer review: Brain state monitoring for the future prediction of migraine attacks
• Web of Science Academy peer review: Students’ Perception on Training in Writing Research Article for Publication

F1000 has also put together a nice list of expert reviewer comments pertaining to the various aspects of a review report.

Co-reviewing

Co-reviewing (sharing peer review assignments with senior researchers) is one of the best ways to learn peer review. It gives researchers a hands-on, practical understanding of the process.

In an article in The Scientist , the team at Future of Research argues that co-reviewing can be a valuable learning experience for peer review, as long as it’s done properly and with transparency. The reason there’s a need to call out how co-reviewing works is because it does have its downsides. The practice can leave early-career researchers unaware of the core concepts of peer review. This can make it hard to later join an editor’s reviewer pool if they haven’t received adequate recognition for their share of the review work. (If you are asked to write a peer review on behalf of a senior colleague or researcher, get recognition for your efforts by asking your senior colleague to verify the collaborative co-review on your Web of Science researcher profiles).

The Web of Science Academy course ‘Co-reviewing with a mentor’ is uniquely practical in this sense. You will gain experience in peer review by practicing on real papers and working with a mentor to get feedback on how their peer review can be improved. Students submit their peer review report as their course assignment and after internal evaluation receive a course certificate, an Academy graduate badge on their Web of Science researcher profile and is put in front of top editors in their field through the Reviewer Locator at Clarivate.

Here are some external peer review resources found around the web:

• Peer Review Resources from Sense about Science
• Peer Review: The Nuts and Bolts by Sense about Science
• How to review journal manuscripts by R. M. Rosenfeld for Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
• Ethical guidelines for peer review from COPE
• An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts by Callaham, Schriger & Cooper for Annals of Emergency Medicine (requires Flash or Adobe)
• EQUATOR Network’s reporting guidelines for health researchers

And finally, we’ve written a number of blogs about handy peer review tips. Check out some of our top picks:

• How to Write a Peer Review: 12 things you need to know
• Want To Peer Review? Top 10 Tips To Get Noticed By Editors
• Review a manuscript like a pro: 6 tips from a Web of Science Academy supervisor
• How to write a structured reviewer report: 5 tips from an early-career researcher

Want to learn more? Become a master of peer review and connect with top journal editors. The Web of Science Academy – your free online hub of courses designed by expert reviewers, editors and Nobel Prize winners. Find out more today.

Related posts

Unlocking u.k. research excellence: key insights from the research professional news live summit.

For better insights, assess research performance at the department level

Search by keyword

Peer review report on sweden now online - products eurostat news.

Back Peer review report on Sweden now online

10 May 2022

Eurostat is pleased to announce that the fourth peer review report within the third round of European Statistical System (ESS) peer reviews – the peer review report on Sweden – is now publicly available on Eurostat’s dedicated web page . 

The report has been published following the peer review visit in Sweden, which took place physically between 29 November- 3 December 2021 at the offices of Statistics Sweden , and was implemented by a dedicated team of four experts, including one from Eurostat.

The peer reviews of national statistical systems are conducted by external experts (from both inside and outside the ESS) and follow the same methodology. This includes the completion of self-assessment questionnaires by several statistical authorities followed by a peer review visit. The results are a peer review report containing expert recommendations for improvement, and an action plan to address these recommendations developed by the national statistical institute of the reviewed country.

The current third round of ESS peer reviews will be carried out until the beginning of September 2023. Eight ESS peer reviews took place from end of June to December 2021: four of them virtually and four physically. Five of the 12 peer reviews foreseen in 2022 have already taken place (Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Austria), all in physical or hybrid mode, and the remaining 11 are scheduled for 2023.

For each of the 31 ESS members, the final reports and the accompanying improvement action plans will be published in due time on Eurostat’s website .    

For more information:  

• Dedicated section on peer reviews

To contact us, please visit our  User Support  page.

For press queries, please contact our  Media Support .

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
• v.25(3); 2014 Oct

Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide

Jacalyn kelly.

1 Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tara Sadeghieh

Khosrow adeli.

2 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

3 Chair, Communications and Publications Division (CPD), International Federation for Sick Clinical Chemistry (IFCC), Milan, Italy

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this article.

Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review. Despite its wide-spread use by most journals, the peer review process has also been widely criticised due to the slowness of the process to publish new findings and due to perceived bias by the editors and/or reviewers. Within the scientific community, peer review has become an essential component of the academic writing process. It helps ensure that papers published in scientific journals answer meaningful research questions and draw accurate conclusions based on professionally executed experimentation. Submission of low quality manuscripts has become increasingly prevalent, and peer review acts as a filter to prevent this work from reaching the scientific community. The major advantage of a peer review process is that peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. Despite the positive impacts of peer review, critics argue that the peer review process stifles innovation in experimentation, and acts as a poor screen against plagiarism. Despite its downfalls, there has not yet been a foolproof system developed to take the place of peer review, however, researchers have been looking into electronic means of improving the peer review process. Unfortunately, the recent explosion in online only/electronic journals has led to mass publication of a large number of scientific articles with little or no peer review. This poses significant risk to advances in scientific knowledge and its future potential. The current article summarizes the peer review process, highlights the pros and cons associated with different types of peer review, and describes new methods for improving peer review.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW AND WHAT IS ITS PURPOSE?

Peer Review is defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field” ( 1 ). Peer review is intended to serve two primary purposes. Firstly, it acts as a filter to ensure that only high quality research is published, especially in reputable journals, by determining the validity, significance and originality of the study. Secondly, peer review is intended to improve the quality of manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication. Peer reviewers provide suggestions to authors on how to improve the quality of their manuscripts, and also identify any errors that need correcting before publication.

HISTORY OF PEER REVIEW

The concept of peer review was developed long before the scholarly journal. In fact, the peer review process is thought to have been used as a method of evaluating written work since ancient Greece ( 2 ). The peer review process was first described by a physician named Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi of Syria, who lived from 854-931 CE, in his book Ethics of the Physician ( 2 ). There, he stated that physicians must take notes describing the state of their patients’ medical conditions upon each visit. Following treatment, the notes were scrutinized by a local medical council to determine whether the physician had met the required standards of medical care. If the medical council deemed that the appropriate standards were not met, the physician in question could receive a lawsuit from the maltreated patient ( 2 ).

The invention of the printing press in 1453 allowed written documents to be distributed to the general public ( 3 ). At this time, it became more important to regulate the quality of the written material that became publicly available, and editing by peers increased in prevalence. In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote the work Novum Organum, where he described what eventually became known as the first universal method for generating and assessing new science ( 3 ). His work was instrumental in shaping the Scientific Method ( 3 ). In 1665, the French Journal des sçavans and the English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were the first scientific journals to systematically publish research results ( 4 ). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society is thought to be the first journal to formalize the peer review process in 1665 ( 5 ), however, it is important to note that peer review was initially introduced to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish in their journals, and at that time it did not serve to ensure the validity of the research ( 6 ). It did not take long for the peer review process to evolve, and shortly thereafter papers were distributed to reviewers with the intent of authenticating the integrity of the research study before publication. The Royal Society of Edinburgh adhered to the following peer review process, published in their Medical Essays and Observations in 1731: “Memoirs sent by correspondence are distributed according to the subject matter to those members who are most versed in these matters. The report of their identity is not known to the author.” ( 7 ). The Royal Society of London adopted this review procedure in 1752 and developed the “Committee on Papers” to review manuscripts before they were published in Philosophical Transactions ( 6 ).

Peer review in the systematized and institutionalized form has developed immensely since the Second World War, at least partly due to the large increase in scientific research during this period ( 7 ). It is now used not only to ensure that a scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound, but also to determine which papers sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of quality and originality before publication. Peer review is now standard practice by most credible scientific journals, and is an essential part of determining the credibility and quality of work submitted.

IMPACT OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Peer review has become the foundation of the scholarly publication system because it effectively subjects an author’s work to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Thus, it encourages authors to strive to produce high quality research that will advance the field. Peer review also supports and maintains integrity and authenticity in the advancement of science. A scientific hypothesis or statement is generally not accepted by the academic community unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal ( 8 ). The Institute for Scientific Information ( ISI ) only considers journals that are peer-reviewed as candidates to receive Impact Factors. Peer review is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years.

OVERVIEW OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process begins when a scientist completes a research study and writes a manuscript that describes the purpose, experimental design, results, and conclusions of the study. The scientist then submits this paper to a suitable journal that specializes in a relevant research field, a step referred to as pre-submission. The editors of the journal will review the paper to ensure that the subject matter is in line with that of the journal, and that it fits with the editorial platform. Very few papers pass this initial evaluation. If the journal editors feel the paper sufficiently meets these requirements and is written by a credible source, they will send the paper to accomplished researchers in the field for a formal peer review. Peer reviewers are also known as referees (this process is summarized in Figure 1 ). The role of the editor is to select the most appropriate manuscripts for the journal, and to implement and monitor the peer review process. Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted fairly, and in an effective and timely manner. They must also ensure that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the peer review process.

Overview of the review process

When a reviewer is provided with a paper, he or she reads it carefully and scrutinizes it to evaluate the validity of the science, the quality of the experimental design, and the appropriateness of the methods used. The reviewer also assesses the significance of the research, and judges whether the work will contribute to advancement in the field by evaluating the importance of the findings, and determining the originality of the research. Additionally, reviewers identify any scientific errors and references that are missing or incorrect. Peer reviewers give recommendations to the editor regarding whether the paper should be accepted, rejected, or improved before publication in the journal. The editor will mediate author-referee discussion in order to clarify the priority of certain referee requests, suggest areas that can be strengthened, and overrule reviewer recommendations that are beyond the study’s scope ( 9 ). If the paper is accepted, as per suggestion by the peer reviewer, the paper goes into the production stage, where it is tweaked and formatted by the editors, and finally published in the scientific journal. An overview of the review process is presented in Figure 1 .

WHO CONDUCTS REVIEWS?

Peer reviews are conducted by scientific experts with specialized knowledge on the content of the manuscript, as well as by scientists with a more general knowledge base. Peer reviewers can be anyone who has competence and expertise in the subject areas that the journal covers. Reviewers can range from young and up-and-coming researchers to old masters in the field. Often, the young reviewers are the most responsive and deliver the best quality reviews, though this is not always the case. On average, a reviewer will conduct approximately eight reviews per year, according to a study on peer review by the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) ( 7 ). Journals will often have a pool of reviewers with diverse backgrounds to allow for many different perspectives. They will also keep a rather large reviewer bank, so that reviewers do not get burnt out, overwhelmed or time constrained from reviewing multiple articles simultaneously.

WHY DO REVIEWERS REVIEW?

Referees are typically not paid to conduct peer reviews and the process takes considerable effort, so the question is raised as to what incentive referees have to review at all. Some feel an academic duty to perform reviews, and are of the mentality that if their peers are expected to review their papers, then they should review the work of their peers as well. Reviewers may also have personal contacts with editors, and may want to assist as much as possible. Others review to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in their field, and reading new scientific papers is an effective way to do so. Some scientists use peer review as an opportunity to advance their own research as it stimulates new ideas and allows them to read about new experimental techniques. Other reviewers are keen on building associations with prestigious journals and editors and becoming part of their community, as sometimes reviewers who show dedication to the journal are later hired as editors. Some scientists see peer review as a chance to become aware of the latest research before their peers, and thus be first to develop new insights from the material. Finally, in terms of career development, peer reviewing can be desirable as it is often noted on one’s resume or CV. Many institutions consider a researcher’s involvement in peer review when assessing their performance for promotions ( 11 ). Peer reviewing can also be an effective way for a scientist to show their superiors that they are committed to their scientific field ( 5 ).

ARE REVIEWERS KEEN TO REVIEW?

A 2009 international survey of 4000 peer reviewers conducted by the charity Sense About Science at the British Science Festival at the University of Surrey, found that 90% of reviewers were keen to peer review ( 12 ). One third of respondents to the survey said they were happy to review up to five papers per year, and an additional one third of respondents were happy to review up to ten.

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO REVIEW ONE PAPER?

On average, it takes approximately six hours to review one paper ( 12 ), however, this number may vary greatly depending on the content of the paper and the nature of the peer reviewer. One in every 100 participants in the “Sense About Science” survey claims to have taken more than 100 hours to review their last paper ( 12 ).

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A JOURNAL IS PEER REVIEWED

Ulrichsweb is a directory that provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including information regarding which journals are peer reviewed ( 13 ). After logging into the system using an institutional login (eg. from the University of Toronto), search terms, journal titles or ISSN numbers can be entered into the search bar. The database provides the title, publisher, and country of origin of the journal, and indicates whether the journal is still actively publishing. The black book symbol (labelled ‘refereed’) reveals that the journal is peer reviewed.

THE EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PEER REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

As previously mentioned, when a reviewer receives a scientific manuscript, he/she will first determine if the subject matter is well suited for the content of the journal. The reviewer will then consider whether the research question is important and original, a process which may be aided by a literature scan of review articles.

Scientific papers submitted for peer review usually follow a specific structure that begins with the title, followed by the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions, and references. The title must be descriptive and include the concept and organism investigated, and potentially the variable manipulated and the systems used in the study. The peer reviewer evaluates if the title is descriptive enough, and ensures that it is clear and concise. A study by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) published by the Oxford University Press in 2006 indicated that the title of a manuscript plays a significant role in determining reader interest, as 72% of respondents said they could usually judge whether an article will be of interest to them based on the title and the author, while 13% of respondents claimed to always be able to do so ( 14 ).

The abstract is a summary of the paper, which briefly mentions the background or purpose, methods, key results, and major conclusions of the study. The peer reviewer assesses whether the abstract is sufficiently informative and if the content of the abstract is consistent with the rest of the paper. The NAR study indicated that 40% of respondents could determine whether an article would be of interest to them based on the abstract alone 60-80% of the time, while 32% could judge an article based on the abstract 80-100% of the time ( 14 ). This demonstrates that the abstract alone is often used to assess the value of an article.

The introduction of a scientific paper presents the research question in the context of what is already known about the topic, in order to identify why the question being studied is of interest to the scientific community, and what gap in knowledge the study aims to fill ( 15 ). The introduction identifies the study’s purpose and scope, briefly describes the general methods of investigation, and outlines the hypothesis and predictions ( 15 ). The peer reviewer determines whether the introduction provides sufficient background information on the research topic, and ensures that the research question and hypothesis are clearly identifiable.

The methods section describes the experimental procedures, and explains why each experiment was conducted. The methods section also includes the equipment and reagents used in the investigation. The methods section should be detailed enough that it can be used it to repeat the experiment ( 15 ). Methods are written in the past tense and in the active voice. The peer reviewer assesses whether the appropriate methods were used to answer the research question, and if they were written with sufficient detail. If information is missing from the methods section, it is the peer reviewer’s job to identify what details need to be added.

The results section is where the outcomes of the experiment and trends in the data are explained without judgement, bias or interpretation ( 15 ). This section can include statistical tests performed on the data, as well as figures and tables in addition to the text. The peer reviewer ensures that the results are described with sufficient detail, and determines their credibility. Reviewers also confirm that the text is consistent with the information presented in tables and figures, and that all figures and tables included are important and relevant ( 15 ). The peer reviewer will also make sure that table and figure captions are appropriate both contextually and in length, and that tables and figures present the data accurately.

The discussion section is where the data is analyzed. Here, the results are interpreted and related to past studies ( 15 ). The discussion describes the meaning and significance of the results in terms of the research question and hypothesis, and states whether the hypothesis was supported or rejected. This section may also provide possible explanations for unusual results and suggestions for future research ( 15 ). The discussion should end with a conclusions section that summarizes the major findings of the investigation. The peer reviewer determines whether the discussion is clear and focused, and whether the conclusions are an appropriate interpretation of the results. Reviewers also ensure that the discussion addresses the limitations of the study, any anomalies in the results, the relationship of the study to previous research, and the theoretical implications and practical applications of the study.

The references are found at the end of the paper, and list all of the information sources cited in the text to describe the background, methods, and/or interpret results. Depending on the citation method used, the references are listed in alphabetical order according to author last name, or numbered according to the order in which they appear in the paper. The peer reviewer ensures that references are used appropriately, cited accurately, formatted correctly, and that none are missing.

Finally, the peer reviewer determines whether the paper is clearly written and if the content seems logical. After thoroughly reading through the entire manuscript, they determine whether it meets the journal’s standards for publication,

and whether it falls within the top 25% of papers in its field ( 16 ) to determine priority for publication. An overview of what a peer reviewer looks for when evaluating a manuscript, in order of importance, is presented in Figure 2 .

How a peer review evaluates a manuscript

To increase the chance of success in the peer review process, the author must ensure that the paper fully complies with the journal guidelines before submission. The author must also be open to criticism and suggested revisions, and learn from mistakes made in previous submissions.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEER REVIEW

The peer review process is generally conducted in one of three ways: open review, single-blind review, or double-blind review. In an open review, both the author of the paper and the peer reviewer know one another’s identity. Alternatively, in single-blind review, the reviewer’s identity is kept private, but the author’s identity is revealed to the reviewer. In double-blind review, the identities of both the reviewer and author are kept anonymous. Open peer review is advantageous in that it prevents the reviewer from leaving malicious comments, being careless, or procrastinating completion of the review ( 2 ). It encourages reviewers to be open and honest without being disrespectful. Open reviewing also discourages plagiarism amongst authors ( 2 ). On the other hand, open peer review can also prevent reviewers from being honest for fear of developing bad rapport with the author. The reviewer may withhold or tone down their criticisms in order to be polite ( 2 ). This is especially true when younger reviewers are given a more esteemed author’s work, in which case the reviewer may be hesitant to provide criticism for fear that it will damper their relationship with a superior ( 2 ). According to the Sense About Science survey, editors find that completely open reviewing decreases the number of people willing to participate, and leads to reviews of little value ( 12 ). In the aforementioned study by the PRC, only 23% of authors surveyed had experience with open peer review ( 7 ).

Single-blind peer review is by far the most common. In the PRC study, 85% of authors surveyed had experience with single-blind peer review ( 7 ). This method is advantageous as the reviewer is more likely to provide honest feedback when their identity is concealed ( 2 ). This allows the reviewer to make independent decisions without the influence of the author ( 2 ). The main disadvantage of reviewer anonymity, however, is that reviewers who receive manuscripts on subjects similar to their own research may be tempted to delay completing the review in order to publish their own data first ( 2 ).

Double-blind peer review is advantageous as it prevents the reviewer from being biased against the author based on their country of origin or previous work ( 2 ). This allows the paper to be judged based on the quality of the content, rather than the reputation of the author. The Sense About Science survey indicates that 76% of researchers think double-blind peer review is a good idea ( 12 ), and the PRC survey indicates that 45% of authors have had experience with double-blind peer review ( 7 ). The disadvantage of double-blind peer review is that, especially in niche areas of research, it can sometimes be easy for the reviewer to determine the identity of the author based on writing style, subject matter or self-citation, and thus, impart bias ( 2 ).

Masking the author’s identity from peer reviewers, as is the case in double-blind review, is generally thought to minimize bias and maintain review quality. A study by Justice et al. in 1998 investigated whether masking author identity affected the quality of the review ( 17 ). One hundred and eighteen manuscripts were randomized; 26 were peer reviewed as normal, and 92 were moved into the ‘intervention’ arm, where editor quality assessments were completed for 77 manuscripts and author quality assessments were completed for 40 manuscripts ( 17 ). There was no perceived difference in quality between the masked and unmasked reviews. Additionally, the masking itself was often unsuccessful, especially with well-known authors ( 17 ). However, a previous study conducted by McNutt et al. had different results ( 18 ). In this case, blinding was successful 73% of the time, and they found that when author identity was masked, the quality of review was slightly higher ( 18 ). Although Justice et al. argued that this difference was too small to be consequential, their study targeted only biomedical journals, and the results cannot be generalized to journals of a different subject matter ( 17 ). Additionally, there were problems masking the identities of well-known authors, introducing a flaw in the methods. Regardless, Justice et al. concluded that masking author identity from reviewers may not improve review quality ( 17 ).

In addition to open, single-blind and double-blind peer review, there are two experimental forms of peer review. In some cases, following publication, papers may be subjected to post-publication peer review. As many papers are now published online, the scientific community has the opportunity to comment on these papers, engage in online discussions and post a formal review. For example, online publishers PLOS and BioMed Central have enabled scientists to post comments on published papers if they are registered users of the site ( 10 ). Philica is another journal launched with this experimental form of peer review. Only 8% of authors surveyed in the PRC study had experience with post-publication review ( 7 ). Another experimental form of peer review called Dynamic Peer Review has also emerged. Dynamic peer review is conducted on websites such as Naboj, which allow scientists to conduct peer reviews on articles in the preprint media ( 19 ). The peer review is conducted on repositories and is a continuous process, which allows the public to see both the article and the reviews as the article is being developed ( 19 ). Dynamic peer review helps prevent plagiarism as the scientific community will already be familiar with the work before the peer reviewed version appears in print ( 19 ). Dynamic review also reduces the time lag between manuscript submission and publishing. An example of a preprint server is the ‘arXiv’ developed by Paul Ginsparg in 1991, which is used primarily by physicists ( 19 ). These alternative forms of peer review are still un-established and experimental. Traditional peer review is time-tested and still highly utilized. All methods of peer review have their advantages and deficiencies, and all are prone to error.

PEER REVIEW OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

Open access (OA) journals are becoming increasingly popular as they allow the potential for widespread distribution of publications in a timely manner ( 20 ). Nevertheless, there can be issues regarding the peer review process of open access journals. In a study published in Science in 2013, John Bohannon submitted 304 slightly different versions of a fictional scientific paper (written by a fake author, working out of a non-existent institution) to a selected group of OA journals. This study was performed in order to determine whether papers submitted to OA journals are properly reviewed before publication in comparison to subscription-based journals. The journals in this study were selected from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Biall’s List, a list of journals which are potentially predatory, and all required a fee for publishing ( 21 ). Of the 304 journals, 157 accepted a fake paper, suggesting that acceptance was based on financial interest rather than the quality of article itself, while 98 journals promptly rejected the fakes ( 21 ). Although this study highlights useful information on the problems associated with lower quality publishers that do not have an effective peer review system in place, the article also generalizes the study results to all OA journals, which can be detrimental to the general perception of OA journals. There were two limitations of the study that made it impossible to accurately determine the relationship between peer review and OA journals: 1) there was no control group (subscription-based journals), and 2) the fake papers were sent to a non-randomized selection of journals, resulting in bias.

JOURNAL ACCEPTANCE RATES

Based on a recent survey, the average acceptance rate for papers submitted to scientific journals is about 50% ( 7 ). Twenty percent of the submitted manuscripts that are not accepted are rejected prior to review, and 30% are rejected following review ( 7 ). Of the 50% accepted, 41% are accepted with the condition of revision, while only 9% are accepted without the request for revision ( 7 ).

SATISFACTION WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM

Based on a recent survey by the PRC, 64% of academics are satisfied with the current system of peer review, and only 12% claimed to be ‘dissatisfied’ ( 7 ). The large majority, 85%, agreed with the statement that ‘scientific communication is greatly helped by peer review’ ( 7 ). There was a similarly high level of support (83%) for the idea that peer review ‘provides control in scientific communication’ ( 7 ).

HOW TO PEER REVIEW EFFECTIVELY

The following are ten tips on how to be an effective peer reviewer as indicated by Brian Lucey, an expert on the subject ( 22 ):

1) Be professional

Peer review is a mutual responsibility among fellow scientists, and scientists are expected, as part of the academic community, to take part in peer review. If one is to expect others to review their work, they should commit to reviewing the work of others as well, and put effort into it.

2) Be pleasant

If the paper is of low quality, suggest that it be rejected, but do not leave ad hominem comments. There is no benefit to being ruthless.

3) Read the invite

When emailing a scientist to ask them to conduct a peer review, the majority of journals will provide a link to either accept or reject. Do not respond to the email, respond to the link.

4) Be helpful

Suggest how the authors can overcome the shortcomings in their paper. A review should guide the author on what is good and what needs work from the reviewer’s perspective.

5) Be scientific

The peer reviewer plays the role of a scientific peer, not an editor for proofreading or decision-making. Don’t fill a review with comments on editorial and typographic issues. Instead, focus on adding value with scientific knowledge and commenting on the credibility of the research conducted and conclusions drawn. If the paper has a lot of typographical errors, suggest that it be professionally proof edited as part of the review.

6) Be timely

Stick to the timeline given when conducting a peer review. Editors track who is reviewing what and when and will know if someone is late on completing a review. It is important to be timely both out of respect for the journal and the author, as well as to not develop a reputation of being late for review deadlines.

7) Be realistic

The peer reviewer must be realistic about the work presented, the changes they suggest and their role. Peer reviewers may set the bar too high for the paper they are editing by proposing changes that are too ambitious and editors must override them.

8) Be empathetic

Ensure that the review is scientific, helpful and courteous. Be sensitive and respectful with word choice and tone in a review.

Remember that both specialists and generalists can provide valuable insight when peer reviewing. Editors will try to get both specialised and general reviewers for any particular paper to allow for different perspectives. If someone is asked to review, the editor has determined they have a valid and useful role to play, even if the paper is not in their area of expertise.

10) Be organised

A review requires structure and logical flow. A reviewer should proofread their review before submitting it for structural, grammatical and spelling errors as well as for clarity. Most publishers provide short guides on structuring a peer review on their website. Begin with an overview of the proposed improvements; then provide feedback on the paper structure, the quality of data sources and methods of investigation used, the logical flow of argument, and the validity of conclusions drawn. Then provide feedback on style, voice and lexical concerns, with suggestions on how to improve.

In addition, the American Physiology Society (APS) recommends in its Peer Review 101 Handout that peer reviewers should put themselves in both the editor’s and author’s shoes to ensure that they provide what both the editor and the author need and expect ( 11 ). To please the editor, the reviewer should ensure that the peer review is completed on time, and that it provides clear explanations to back up recommendations. To be helpful to the author, the reviewer must ensure that their feedback is constructive. It is suggested that the reviewer take time to think about the paper; they should read it once, wait at least a day, and then re-read it before writing the review ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that Graduate students and researchers pay attention to how peer reviewers edit their work, as well as to what edits they find helpful, in order to learn how to peer review effectively ( 11 ). Additionally, it is suggested that Graduate students practice reviewing by editing their peers’ papers and asking a faculty member for feedback on their efforts. It is recommended that young scientists offer to peer review as often as possible in order to become skilled at the process ( 11 ). The majority of students, fellows and trainees do not get formal training in peer review, but rather learn by observing their mentors. According to the APS, one acquires experience through networking and referrals, and should therefore try to strengthen relationships with journal editors by offering to review manuscripts ( 11 ). The APS also suggests that experienced reviewers provide constructive feedback to students and junior colleagues on their peer review efforts, and encourages them to peer review to demonstrate the importance of this process in improving science ( 11 ).

The peer reviewer should only comment on areas of the manuscript that they are knowledgeable about ( 23 ). If there is any section of the manuscript they feel they are not qualified to review, they should mention this in their comments and not provide further feedback on that section. The peer reviewer is not permitted to share any part of the manuscript with a colleague (even if they may be more knowledgeable in the subject matter) without first obtaining permission from the editor ( 23 ). If a peer reviewer comes across something they are unsure of in the paper, they can consult the literature to try and gain insight. It is important for scientists to remember that if a paper can be improved by the expertise of one of their colleagues, the journal must be informed of the colleague’s help, and approval must be obtained for their colleague to read the protected document. Additionally, the colleague must be identified in the confidential comments to the editor, in order to ensure that he/she is appropriately credited for any contributions ( 23 ). It is the job of the reviewer to make sure that the colleague assisting is aware of the confidentiality of the peer review process ( 23 ). Once the review is complete, the manuscript must be destroyed and cannot be saved electronically by the reviewers ( 23 ).

COMMON ERRORS IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

When performing a peer review, there are some common scientific errors to look out for. Most of these errors are violations of logic and common sense: these may include contradicting statements, unwarranted conclusions, suggestion of causation when there is only support for correlation, inappropriate extrapolation, circular reasoning, or pursuit of a trivial question ( 24 ). It is also common for authors to suggest that two variables are different because the effects of one variable are statistically significant while the effects of the other variable are not, rather than directly comparing the two variables ( 24 ). Authors sometimes oversee a confounding variable and do not control for it, or forget to include important details on how their experiments were controlled or the physical state of the organisms studied ( 24 ). Another common fault is the author’s failure to define terms or use words with precision, as these practices can mislead readers ( 24 ). Jargon and/or misused terms can be a serious problem in papers. Inaccurate statements about specific citations are also a common occurrence ( 24 ). Additionally, many studies produce knowledge that can be applied to areas of science outside the scope of the original study, therefore it is better for reviewers to look at the novelty of the idea, conclusions, data, and methodology, rather than scrutinize whether or not the paper answered the specific question at hand ( 24 ). Although it is important to recognize these points, when performing a review it is generally better practice for the peer reviewer to not focus on a checklist of things that could be wrong, but rather carefully identify the problems specific to each paper and continuously ask themselves if anything is missing ( 24 ). An extremely detailed description of how to conduct peer review effectively is presented in the paper How I Review an Original Scientific Article written by Frederic G. Hoppin, Jr. It can be accessed through the American Physiological Society website under the Peer Review Resources section.

CRITICISM OF PEER REVIEW

A major criticism of peer review is that there is little evidence that the process actually works, that it is actually an effective screen for good quality scientific work, and that it actually improves the quality of scientific literature. As a 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, ‘Editorial peer review, although widely used, is largely untested and its effects are uncertain’ ( 25 ). Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers ( 7 ). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.

Another criticism of peer review is that the process is not conducted thoroughly by scientific conferences with the goal of obtaining large numbers of submitted papers. Such conferences often accept any paper sent in, regardless of its credibility or the prevalence of errors, because the more papers they accept, the more money they can make from author registration fees ( 26 ). This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers ( 26 ). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer ( 26 ). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) ( 26 ). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers. Labbé developed a program to detect SCIgen papers and has made it freely available to ensure publishers and conference organizers do not accept nonsense work in the future. It is available at this link: http://scigendetect.on.imag.fr/main.php ( 26 ).

Additionally, peer review is often criticized for being unable to accurately detect plagiarism. However, many believe that detecting plagiarism cannot practically be included as a component of peer review. As explained by Alice Tuff, development manager at Sense About Science, ‘The vast majority of authors and reviewers think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) but only a minority (38%) think it is capable. The academic time involved in detecting plagiarism through peer review would cause the system to grind to a halt’ ( 27 ). Publishing house Elsevier began developing electronic plagiarism tools with the help of journal editors in 2009 to help improve this issue ( 27 ).

It has also been argued that peer review has lowered research quality by limiting creativity amongst researchers. Proponents of this view claim that peer review has repressed scientists from pursuing innovative research ideas and bold research questions that have the potential to make major advances and paradigm shifts in the field, as they believe that this work will likely be rejected by their peers upon review ( 28 ). Indeed, in some cases peer review may result in rejection of innovative research, as some studies may not seem particularly strong initially, yet may be capable of yielding very interesting and useful developments when examined under different circumstances, or in the light of new information ( 28 ). Scientists that do not believe in peer review argue that the process stifles the development of ingenious ideas, and thus the release of fresh knowledge and new developments into the scientific community.

Another issue that peer review is criticized for, is that there are a limited number of people that are competent to conduct peer review compared to the vast number of papers that need reviewing. An enormous number of papers published (1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006), but the number of competent peer reviewers available could not have reviewed them all ( 29 ). Thus, people who lack the required expertise to analyze the quality of a research paper are conducting reviews, and weak papers are being accepted as a result. It is now possible to publish any paper in an obscure journal that claims to be peer-reviewed, though the paper or journal itself could be substandard ( 29 ). On a similar note, the US National Library of Medicine indexes 39 journals that specialize in alternative medicine, and though they all identify themselves as “peer-reviewed”, they rarely publish any high quality research ( 29 ). This highlights the fact that peer review of more controversial or specialized work is typically performed by people who are interested and hold similar views or opinions as the author, which can cause bias in their review. For instance, a paper on homeopathy is likely to be reviewed by fellow practicing homeopaths, and thus is likely to be accepted as credible, though other scientists may find the paper to be nonsense ( 29 ). In some cases, papers are initially published, but their credibility is challenged at a later date and they are subsequently retracted. Retraction Watch is a website dedicated to revealing papers that have been retracted after publishing, potentially due to improper peer review ( 30 ).

Additionally, despite its many positive outcomes, peer review is also criticized for being a delay to the dissemination of new knowledge into the scientific community, and as an unpaid-activity that takes scientists’ time away from activities that they would otherwise prioritize, such as research and teaching, for which they are paid ( 31 ). As described by Eva Amsen, Outreach Director for F1000Research, peer review was originally developed as a means of helping editors choose which papers to publish when journals had to limit the number of papers they could print in one issue ( 32 ). However, nowadays most journals are available online, either exclusively or in addition to print, and many journals have very limited printing runs ( 32 ). Since there are no longer page limits to journals, any good work can and should be published. Consequently, being selective for the purpose of saving space in a journal is no longer a valid excuse that peer reviewers can use to reject a paper ( 32 ). However, some reviewers have used this excuse when they have personal ulterior motives, such as getting their own research published first.

RECENT INITIATIVES TOWARDS IMPROVING PEER REVIEW

F1000Research was launched in January 2013 by Faculty of 1000 as an open access journal that immediately publishes papers (after an initial check to ensure that the paper is in fact produced by a scientist and has not been plagiarised), and then conducts transparent post-publication peer review ( 32 ). F1000Research aims to prevent delays in new science reaching the academic community that are caused by prolonged publication times ( 32 ). It also aims to make peer reviewing more fair by eliminating any anonymity, which prevents reviewers from delaying the completion of a review so they can publish their own similar work first ( 32 ). F1000Research offers completely open peer review, where everything is published, including the name of the reviewers, their review reports, and the editorial decision letters ( 32 ).

PeerJ was founded by Jason Hoyt and Peter Binfield in June 2012 as an open access, peer reviewed scholarly journal for the Biological and Medical Sciences ( 33 ). PeerJ selects articles to publish based only on scientific and methodological soundness, not on subjective determinants of ‘impact ’, ‘novelty’ or ‘interest’ ( 34 ). It works on a “lifetime publishing plan” model which charges scientists for publishing plans that give them lifetime rights to publish with PeerJ, rather than charging them per publication ( 34 ). PeerJ also encourages open peer review, and authors are given the option to post the full peer review history of their submission with their published article ( 34 ). PeerJ also offers a pre-print review service called PeerJ Pre-prints, in which paper drafts are reviewed before being sent to PeerJ to publish ( 34 ).

Rubriq is an independent peer review service designed by Shashi Mudunuri and Keith Collier to improve the peer review system ( 35 ). Rubriq is intended to decrease redundancy in the peer review process so that the time lost in redundant reviewing can be put back into research ( 35 ). According to Keith Collier, over 15 million hours are lost each year to redundant peer review, as papers get rejected from one journal and are subsequently submitted to a less prestigious journal where they are reviewed again ( 35 ). Authors often have to submit their manuscript to multiple journals, and are often rejected multiple times before they find the right match. This process could take months or even years ( 35 ). Rubriq makes peer review portable in order to help authors choose the journal that is best suited for their manuscript from the beginning, thus reducing the time before their paper is published ( 35 ). Rubriq operates under an author-pay model, in which the author pays a fee and their manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review by three expert academic reviewers using a standardized scorecard ( 35 ). The majority of the author’s fee goes towards a reviewer honorarium ( 35 ). The papers are also screened for plagiarism using iThenticate ( 35 ). Once the manuscript has been reviewed by the three experts, the most appropriate journal for submission is determined based on the topic and quality of the paper ( 35 ). The paper is returned to the author in 1-2 weeks with the Rubriq Report ( 35 ). The author can then submit their paper to the suggested journal with the Rubriq Report attached. The Rubriq Report will give the journal editors a much stronger incentive to consider the paper as it shows that three experts have recommended the paper to them ( 35 ). Rubriq also has its benefits for reviewers; the Rubriq scorecard gives structure to the peer review process, and thus makes it consistent and efficient, which decreases time and stress for the reviewer. Reviewers also receive feedback on their reviews and most significantly, they are compensated for their time ( 35 ). Journals also benefit, as they receive pre-screened papers, reducing the number of papers sent to their own reviewers, which often end up rejected ( 35 ). This can reduce reviewer fatigue, and allow only higher-quality articles to be sent to their peer reviewers ( 35 ).

According to Eva Amsen, peer review and scientific publishing are moving in a new direction, in which all papers will be posted online, and a post-publication peer review will take place that is independent of specific journal criteria and solely focused on improving paper quality ( 32 ). Journals will then choose papers that they find relevant based on the peer reviews and publish those papers as a collection ( 32 ). In this process, peer review and individual journals are uncoupled ( 32 ). In Keith Collier’s opinion, post-publication peer review is likely to become more prevalent as a complement to pre-publication peer review, but not as a replacement ( 35 ). Post-publication peer review will not serve to identify errors and fraud but will provide an additional measurement of impact ( 35 ). Collier also believes that as journals and publishers consolidate into larger systems, there will be stronger potential for “cascading” and shared peer review ( 35 ).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Peer review has become fundamental in assisting editors in selecting credible, high quality, novel and interesting research papers to publish in scientific journals and to ensure the correction of any errors or issues present in submitted papers. Though the peer review process still has some flaws and deficiencies, a more suitable screening method for scientific papers has not yet been proposed or developed. Researchers have begun and must continue to look for means of addressing the current issues with peer review to ensure that it is a full-proof system that ensures only quality research papers are released into the scientific community.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 2 September 2022.

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, frequently asked questions about peer review.

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 anonymised) 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 anonymised comments cause reviewers to be too harsh.

Double-blind peer review

In double-blind (or double anonymised) 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 anonymised) review – where the identities of the author, reviewers, and editors are all anonymised – does exist, it is difficult to carry out in practice.

Proponents of adopting triple-blind review for journal submissions argue that it minimises potential conflicts of interest and biases. However, ensuring anonymity is logistically challenging, and current editing software is not always able to fully anonymise 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 minimise 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.

Summarise the argument in your own words

Summarising 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 organised. 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.

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 criticised, 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

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 plagiarised 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 defence, 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.

• 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.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilising 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.

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 defence, 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.

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

• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for 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.

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 Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, September 02). What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 2 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/peer-reviews/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a double-blind study | introduction & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, data cleaning | a guide with examples & steps.

MINI REVIEW article

Career construction theory: tools, interventions, and future trends.

• School of Education, Huainan Normal University, Huainan, China

With the emergence of the borderless career era in the 21st century, career coaching has experienced a change from career guidance and career education to career counseling. Career construction theory has been widely used in career counseling and has substantial application value. Introducing career construct theory’s assessment tools and intervention strategies is necessary and meaningful. In this mini-review, the qualitative assessment tools and intervention approaches of career construct theory are introduced and analyzed; the qualitative assessment tools include the Career Construction Interview and “My Career Story” workbook, and the intervention approaches include the Computer-Assisted Career Counseling System, workshops, group counseling, and individual counseling. Finally, future research directions are proposed, including an analysis of what kinds of career construction interventions are most effective for which groups and under what conditions, career intervention in the digital age, and the standardization of assessment tools. The novelty of this paper lies in the fact that it purposefully proposes future directions for career construction theory from the perspectives of assessment tools and intervention approaches and that research on the assessment tools and intervention approaches of career construction theory still needs further attention.

Introduction

Career counseling has changed from career guidance and career education to career counseling. In the 19th century, career counseling was centered on the matching career guidance model, which is making rational decisions based on self and career information. After entering the 20th century, career counseling is based on career development theory, focusing on how individuals make decisions, a process-oriented career intervention. Furthermore, beginning in the 21st century, career counseling centers on career construction theory, focusing on vocational personality, career adaptability, and life theme, emphasizing constructing careers. These three theoretical models are the career guidance model to determine the person-job match, career education to promote career development, and career counseling to design work-life.

Career construction theory

Savickas (2005) proposed the career construction theory based on personal constructivism, social constructionism, and post-modernity. Career construction theory believes that the essence of individual career development is the dynamic construction process of pursuing mutual adaptation between the subjective self and the external objective world, and different people construct different stories. Career construction theory provides a dynamic perspective to give personal meaning to memories, present experiences, and plans, constructing careers through a sense of meaning and clarifying future directions. The theory includes three parts: vocational personality, career adaptability, and life theme. Occupational personality refers to an individual’s career-related abilities, needs, values, and interests. Career adaptability is described as “a psychosocial construct that denotes an individual’s resources for coping with current and imminent vocational development tasks, transitions, traumas” ( Savickas and Porfeli, 2012 , p. 662). The difference between occupational personality and career adaptability is that occupational personality emphasizes the content of a career, while career adaptability emphasizes the coping process of constructing a career. Career adaptability deals with how individuals construct careers, while occupational personality deals with what careers they construct. Career adaptability deals with how individuals construct their careers, while occupational personality deals with what careers they construct. Unlike vocational personality and career adaptability, life theme is a dynamical system that primarily explains why individuals make career choices and the significance of those choices and expresses the uniqueness of the individual in a particular context, which provides a way of looking at the world. Career counseling, developed from career construction theory, focuses on vocational personality, career adaptability, and constructing meaning in life themes ( Savickas, 2013 ). Vocational personality focuses on the “what,” career adaptability is about the “how,” and life theme responds to the “why” ( Guan and Li, 2015 ).

Compared to other career theories, career construction theory helps students adapt to the future’s complex and changing career world and inspires a richer perspective on career development ( Gao and Qiao, 2022 ). Meta-analysis has shown that social construction theory is more effective than individual-environmental matching theory ( Langher et al., 2018 ). Career construction theory seeks to explain the interpersonal process in which individuals construct the self, establish the direction of career behavior, and assign meaning to careers, providing a unique perspective on how to view the subject of career counseling ( Hou et al., 2014 ). Career construction theory provides specific ideas to help the case make career decisions and enhance work satisfaction ( Savickas, 2005 ). Therefore, this review aims to introduce the tools, interventions, and future directions of career construction theory to help individuals better adapt to the rapidly evolving situation.

To ensure the quality of the literature, the terms “career construction” and “intervention” were used as search terms in this study, both of which appeared in the title, abstract, or keywords. A comprehensive search was conducted on the “Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EBSCO.” The search was limited to English-language articles. Specifically, the literature was searched from 2013 to 2023. In addition, only standard research papers were included in this study, excluding review-type articles.

Life design counseling

Life design counseling is based on career construct theory, which gives meaning to life and supports adaptive responses by helping the individual to tell a career story, constructing the past, present, and future to form continuity and consistency. The five assumptions of the life design model of vocational intervention are contextual possibilities, dynamic processes, non-linear progression, multiple perspectives, and personal patterns. Life design counseling is lifelong, holistic, contextual, and preventive. It aims to increase the client’s adaptability, narratability, and activism ( Savickas et al., 2009 ).

The life design paradigm relies on story construction and action. The first stage of life design counseling is constructive, which involves clarifying the problem and what one hopes to achieve through counseling. The counselor encourages the client to find the life theme by describing the problem to be solved through a story. The second is deconstruction, which helps the client reflect on and shape the story by allowing them to clearly express experiences, expectations, actions, and expectations for the future. The third stage is reconstruction. The counselor and the client can interpret the story from different perspectives, thus enabling the client to rewrite his or her story. The fourth is the co-construction stage. The issues raised by the client are put into the rewritten story, and a new story is co-constructed as a solution. The fifth stage is action. Assign participation in some of the narrative’s possible self-relevant activities. It is necessary to specify what they will do and what this means to help the client make a plan ( Savickas et al., 2009 ).

Career construction interview

The Career Construction Interview is a structured process based on life design counseling designed to help clients tell, hear, and enact their life career stories. Counselors help them to coherently tell their career story, cope with changes in the environment, design a meaningful life, and take action by conducting a qualitative career assessment with a narrative model and methodology. The career construction interview comprises five questions, each leading to a thematic story. Role Models are to identify adjectives that describe self-constructs and concepts. Favorite magazines/TV/websites are to identify the types of environments and activities that interest the client. Favorite stories are understanding the stories or cultural scripts the client might use to envision transformational outcomes. Favorite mottos can give the client some advice. Early recollections can provide insight into how the client perceives the issues presented in the transition narrative ( Savickas, 2011 ).

At the beginning of the second phase, the counselor draws a portrait of life-occupation based on the client’s answers to CCI questions, combined with observation and reflection. By reviewing the story together and encouraging reflection and reflexivity in the conversation, the counselor and client construct a powerful new life-career identity that has coherent meaning for the client’s life. In the third phase, the client develops an action plan with the counselor. The career interest results obtained from the CCI correlate moderately with the quantitative Career Interest Inventory results, which suggests that the CCI agrees with traditional quantitative assessment tools ( Barclay and Wolff, 2012 ). Barclay (2018) provided three additional ways to use the CCI: written exercises, career collages, and career portfolios. Lindo and Ceballos (2019) developed the Child and Adolescent Career Construction, which includes the development of appropriate expressive arts to promote self-expression and career exploration in children ages nine and older. The CACCI includes a socio-emotional focus that encourages clients to explore self-concepts, life themes, and career awareness.

My Career Story

“My Career Story” is a career autobiographical workbook developed based on the Life Design Paradigm and contains written exercises and goal-setting activities essential to successful career planning ( Brown and Ryan Krane, 2000 ). It corresponds to the construction, deconstruction, reconstruction, co-construction, and action of life design counseling ( Hartung and Santilli, 2017 ).

MCS is designed to help clients tell, hear, and enact their life-career stories about who they are, who they want to be in the world of work, and how they can connect themselves to careers they might enjoy. Individuals, groups, and educators can use MCS to guide self-reflection to increase narrative identity, intentionality, and adaptability in career planning, career choice, and work adjustment. The MCS workbook consists of three sections to guide clients in telling their life stories. The first section, “Telling My Story,” begins by defining the participant’s problem, listing the careers they have considered pursuing and how they would like the workbook to benefit them. Next, participants answered questions related to life-career topics: (1) role models they admired while growing up, (2) favorite magazines and television shows, (3) stories from favorite books or movies, (4) favorite mottos. The second part is “Listening to My Story.” Portrait their lives by integrating smaller stories into a more cohesive career story. Including (1) Who will I be? (2) Where do I like to be? (3) The portrait summarizes (4) Rewrite my story. The third section, “Enacting My Story,” involves creating a realistic plan to implement the story ( Santilli et al., 2019 ). The MCS can be used by clients alone or with the counselor’s assistance. As an adjunct to career counseling, the MCS can be used in one-on-one individual and group counseling and career development learning activities in the classroom or other settings ( Hartung and Santilli, 2017 ).

Career intervention

Twenty-two studies published between 2013 and 2023 met all criteria and provided the necessary data for the systematic review. Databases included Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EBSCO. Two authors screened all titles and abstracts. In addition, they considered the eligibility of full-text articles. First, the databases were searched with the keywords “career construct theory” and “intervention.” Furthermore, a citation search was conducted for key papers, and reference checking was performed as suggested by Tuttle et al. (2009) . Thus, the search strategy was iterative and multi-stage, including computerized and manual searches. Therefore, it can be concluded that these searches were adequate for a systematic review. Finally, 22 studies were identified, including three qualitative and 19 quantitative studies. The two authors evaluated these studies against the selection criteria and agreed on the final 22 studies. Figure 1 depicts the process of selection.

Figure 1 . PRISMA flow chart.

These studies review intervention research on career construction theory, as shown in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Intervention studies.

Career group

Career Group is based on group counseling theory and can promote the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of an individual’s career development. Career group guidance and career group counseling are two forms of career groups. The difference is that career group guidance has more participants and focuses on transferring knowledge. Career counseling has fewer members and emphasizes interaction and communication between members ( Jin, 2007 ).

Researchers examined the effects of life design group guidance on 9th grade. Findings supported the effects of life design group guidance on career identity, career adaptability, and career decision-making self-efficacy ( Cardoso et al., 2022 ). Maree (2019) used quantitative and qualitative research methods to conduct group career construct counseling with 11th-grade students. The Career Adaptability Scale was used for quantitative analysis. Career interest analysis and Maree Career Matrix were used for qualitative intervention. The findings revealed that students significantly improved career adaptability. Maree et al. (2019) explored the impact of life design group counseling on unemployed young adults’ career adaptability. First, the Career Interest Profile was used to obtain information about career choices: work-related information, five most and least preferred career preferences, six career choice questions, and 15 career story narrative questions. Career counseling techniques such as career genealogy charts, interviews, and personal statements were used. Results indicated that life design group counseling increased participants’ career adaptability.

Recently, Gai et al. (2022) used career construct theory to develop a peer motivational interview that included engagement, focus, arousal, and planning. The research involved senior students conducting one-on-one career motivational interviews with junior students. Results indicated that the intervention increased students’ career control and career confidence. Cook and Maree (2016) compared the effects of career construction group counseling and a life-oriented curriculum on 11th-grade students in different educational settings. The group counseling included Collage, the Career Interest Profile, and the lifeline technique. Participants demonstrated higher career adaptability after participating in career construction group counseling. Maree et al. (2017) used career construction group counseling. The experimental group completed narrative questions in the Career Interest Profile. They created career collages depicting how they see their future. In addition, “My Lifeline” was drawn to mark essential themes in their lives. The quantitative study results indicated that life design group counseling did not increase participants’ career adaptability compared to the traditional program.

Seminar is another form of group counseling. Seminars are less frequent and intensive than group counseling, with more fixed topics and less interaction between members, making them an efficient method ( Jin, 2007 ).

Life design counseling can reduce indecision, anxiety, uncertainty, and insecurity among college students ( Obi, 2015 ). Maree and Symington (2015) designed eight life design workshops with five 11th-grade students in a private school. The students demonstrated increased effort to address issues related to career concern, control, curiosity, and confidence, suggesting that the intervention facilitated the development of their career adaptability. Cadaret and Hartung (2021) designed career construction group counseling using the workshop format combining individual reflection and group discussion. The workshops were based on the My Career Story (MCS) workbook. The first session was “Telling My Story,” which included role models, favorite magazines/TV shows/websites, favorite books/movies, and favorite mottos. The second was “Hearing My Story,” which included describing myself and my interests, scripting roles, making suggestions, and constructing a life portrait. The third session, “Enacting My Story,” included co-setting goals, seeking more information, and exploring pathways to select and identify career goals. Results indicated that the career construction intervention increased students’ career control and confidence. Ginevra et al. (2017) used a life design approach to develop resources that help cope with career transitions, encourage thinking about the future, identify one’s strengths, and plan future projects. It is divided into three phases. Participants were encouraged to tell, revise, and construct their career stories in the first phase. In the second phase, participants were administered an online questionnaire on hope, optimism, resilience, future direction, and career readiness. Consider their strengths in response to the career change in the third phase. Results indicated that the life design approach improved their career adaptability.

Peila-Shuster et al. (2021) used career construct theory to conduct career workshops with adults who had been unemployed for more than six months. Workshops included current status, describing role models, favorite mottos, rewriting stories, reflections, and action plans. The counseling utilizes the My Career Storybook to help participants cope with their problems and prepare for their job search by facilitating narratability, intentionality, and career adaptability. Da Silva et al. (2022) conducted career construct interviews with students. The interview consisted of three workshops that (1) discussed role models, television shows, books or movies, mottos, and early memories; (2) Exploring participants’ answers to career construct interview questions; (3) Discuss the steps needed to implement a new career plan. The study showed that the Career Construct Interview promotes the development of students’ career adaptability and remains stable 3 months after the intervention. This suggests that the intervention of the Career Construct Interview has a good latency. Santilli et al. (2019) compared the impact of life design and traditional career counseling on adolescents. Life design group counseling utilized the “My Career Story” workshop format. The results showed that the intervention promoted the development of career adaptability in the Life Design group. This suggests that “My Career Story” may be an effective means of developing career adaptability in adolescents.

However, the study yielded inconsistent results. Researchers examined the impact of the life design workshop on 9th and 12th-grade students. The intervention utilized the “My Career Story” life design methodology. The results showed that the life design intervention did not impact students’ career adaptability ( Cardoso et al., 2018 ).

Online career group

The advantage of online interventions is the availability of audiovisual materials, including videos, slideshows, and animations, which help students explore values, interests, and skills independently. Online career counseling is more accessible than traditional career guidance, and students can access various practical information ( Chen et al., 2022 ).

Nota et al. (2016) compared the validity of online life-based design and traditional test interpretations. All students received personalized feedback, including suggestions for future schools and jobs related to their interests, values, and motivation. Results indicated that the online life design group demonstrated higher career adaptability, life satisfaction, and future aspirations. The researchers compared online and face-to-face life design counseling on career development. The online interventions included an introduction to online books, bilingual career videos, short animations, access to a virtual library, an introduction to similar websites that promote career development, and online chats with career counselors. The results showed that online and face-to-face career interventions improved students’ career development ( Pordelan et al., 2018 ). Later, they compared life design digital storytelling and face-to-face storytelling, and the study found that the digital storytelling group had higher career decision self-efficacy than face-to-face storytelling ( Pordelan et al., 2021 ).

Zammitti et al. (2023) conducted a life design paradigm online career intervention with college students to enhance their psychological resources. The online intervention consisted of career workshops and 13 online activities. The study showed that an online group career intervention in the life design paradigm promotes the development of resilience, subjective risk intelligence, career adaptability, self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and life satisfaction. Camussi et al. (2023) foster the development of student’s skills to face complexity and unpredictability, transforming their time perspective into optimism to face the future. The intervention was based on the theoretical model of Life Design. The intervention themes were “My future, why?” and “Who am I and who do I want to be?.” The intervention consisted of two online workshops. It included reflections on conscious life design and current global contextual challenges. The study demonstrated that the Life Design online intervention facilitated the development of students’ levels of career adaptability, courage, time perspective, and resilience.

Individual career counseling

Individual career counseling is usually a one-on-one approach that assists with career confusion to enhance career adaptability. Individual counseling has the highest cost but significantly impacts the client and the counselor.

The value of individual career counseling is to help all those challenged by unemployment and poverty (especially emerging adults) to become employable, find decent work, and increase their sense of self, and in the process, promote the idea of a fair and just society ( Maree and Twigge, 2016 ). Maree and Gerryts (2014) conducted narrative counseling with a newly young male engineer based on career construct theory. Methods included collage, Career Interest Profile, life chapters, lifeline, early recollections technique, and Career Construction Interview. Participants demonstrated an increase in willingness to cope with challenges and adaptive strategies. This suggests that narrative counseling can facilitate the development of career adaptability. Maree (2016) conducted career construction counseling with a mid-career Black man to construct, deconstruct, reconstruct, and co-construct the client’s life story. The interview included role models, favorite magazines/TV/websites, favorite stories, early memories, and favorite mottos. The client demonstrated an improved self-awareness and a willingness to be more flexible in dealing with challenges related to the career.

Career assessment

The Career Construction Interview and MCS workbook are two qualitative assessment tools under the Career Construction Theory. The groups for which the tools are applicable may be different. The adult population may be more suitable for the Career Construction Interview, and most individual counseling uses the Career Construction Interview ( Maree and Gerryts, 2014 ; Maree, 2016 ; Maree and Twigge, 2016 ). Quantitative tools for career construction intervention mostly use a career adaptability scale ( Maree and Symington, 2015 ; Ginevra et al., 2017 ; Maree et al., 2019 ).

Quantitative assessment is a standardized and scientific measurement tool but has certain disadvantages. The advantage of qualitative assessment is that it facilitates the discussion of group career counseling and can improve the shortcomings of quantitative tools. The case study of self-narrative can help the researcher to sort out the main conflicts and critical variables in career development ( Guan and Li, 2015 ). Integrative Structured Interview, based on the system’s theoretical framework, is a method that combines qualitative and quantitative measures to advance storytelling. Using Hollander’s interests as the basis for quantitative assessment, integrating assessment results with storytelling, the integrative structured interview facilitates this integration through quantitative score-based career storytelling that focuses not on the scores but on facilitating participants’ understanding of their scores, career decisions, and transitions ( McMahon et al., 2020 ). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a hybrid standardized assessment method based on career construction theory.

Career construction theory has been widely used in the field of career counseling. Career group counseling is guided by the theory of career construction, and career intervention programs are designed for the career construction process of different groups, which can effectively solve the problems faced by different groups in career development. Individual career counseling can help cases to link their self-concept with their work through the self-construction of work so that individuals can become the creators of their work and actively construct the meaning of their careers to be prepared for the new changes in the work pattern.

Brown and Ryan Krane (2000) meta-analysis identified five critical elements of career counseling: written exercises and workbooks, individualized explanations and feedback, career world information, role modeling, and building support. The MCS workbook corresponds to the written exercises and workbooks among the key elements. Another meta-analysis indicated that the three critical elements of career counseling are counselor support, value clarification, and psycho-educational intervention ( Whiston et al., 2017 ). The career construction interview gained direct counselor support and clarification of specific values. Combining the MCS manual and supporting materials may effectively develop career adaptability in adolescents ( Santilli et al., 2019 ). However, some research suggests that ninth graders show more difficulty than twelfth graders in recounting their own experiences ( Cardoso et al., 2018 ). This may be because the career construction interview is more helpful for lower grades, which require direct support and clarification of specific values from the counselor.

Currently, the primary interventions of career construction theory are computer-assisted career counseling systems, workshops, group counseling, and individual counseling. Career courses are the most effective ( Oliver and Spokane, 1988 ). Therefore, converting life design counseling into a career course is warranted, and a career construction orientation curriculum needs to be developed to enrich the career construction intervention. A meta-analysis by Whiston et al. (2003) demonstrated that intervention effectiveness significantly increases using a computerized career guidance system in counseling. Various career intervention approaches are often integrated into practice, mainly using computerized career guidance with other modalities. The study found that a comprehensive intervention combining online life design and written exercises was more likely to increase students’ career adaptability and life satisfaction ( Nota et al., 2016 ).

Future research trends

Although the assessment tools for career construct interventions have been enriched in recent years, the stability, validity, and applicability of the assessment tools still need to be tested in the further. Career construction interventions focus on the reconstruction of life stories. Some studies have found that career construct interventions did not increase students’ career adaptability ( Maree et al., 2017 ; Cardoso et al., 2018 ). This suggests that relying on the Career Adaptability Scale as a quantitative study is insufficient, some questionnaires should be designed to measure whether students can articulate and identify what is important to them before and after the intervention. Assessment tools for career construction intervention mainly consist of qualitative or quantitative tool, but standardization still needs to be improved ( Di Fabio, 2016 ; Cardoso et al., 2022 ). Some studies utilize quantitative and qualitative assessment tools ( Maree, 2020 ), but they need more cross-cultural validation.

Therefore, future research in assessment tools can consider the following aspects: In terms of assessment content, special assessment tools must be prepared for different and unique groups. Savickas (2011) developed a complete set of guidelines for career construction counseling. Online guidelines and assessment tools could be developed in the future, incorporating technologies such as computer networks and multimedia. In particular, comprehensive assessment tools that include quantitative and qualitative aspects should be developed to meet the needs of large-scale research with different groups and achieve standardization and stability of assessment methods.

First, there is a question of what groups and career interventions are most effective under what conditions. The economic benefits of career interventions in different modalities, age groups, and various intervention goals are critical. The meta-analysis result indicated that the career course was the most effective but required the most intervention time. Individual counseling produced more benefits per session than other interventions ( Oliver and Spokane, 1988 ). Subsequently, meta-analysis yielded different results. Individual career counseling was the most effective, followed by group career counseling, with career courses coming in third. Computerized online systems were the most cost-effective ( Whiston et al., 1998 ). A recent meta-analysis indicated that individual counseling was the most effective, while group and individual counseling and computer-based interventions varied widely ( Whiston et al., 2017 ). Meta-analyses have not yet yielded consistent conclusions. In addition to the results, individual and group counseling are effective methods. However, at the same time, it is essential to consider the number of people and the economic benefits that professional interventions can bring ( Whiston, 2011 ).

Additionally, the results showed differences in intervention impact based on the participants’ grades. Ninth graders only improved at the level of career certainty, while twelfth graders showed more significant development on all measured variables. This may be because higher-graders can better understand what is important to them and what they strive for. Therefore, it is essential to consider the characteristics and needs of different groups to maximize the effectiveness of career construction interventions in future research. Different intervention modalities affect individuals’ career development, which is best for group counseling and which works best for individuals. These issues must be better understood, requiring meta-analysis or systematic review to explore in the further.

Second, digital technology is essential for career interventions. In particular, Online interventions allow alternative experiences and role modeling to be more readily available through websites where short videos of successful people can be viewed and inspired. Therefore, career construction theory may benefit career interventions in the digital age. Online career construction interventions are very efficient and likely to be used more and more. Online career construction can present stories in short films, slideshows, or photographs, allowing the client and the counselor to discover hidden stories and help the client gain new concepts. The advantage of online career construction intervention is convenience, where stories can be opened on a computer or other electronic device. In the storytelling process, information technology is utilized as a platform for digital storytelling, where one’s life story is expressed as a photo, movie, or audio ( Pordelan et al., 2021 ). In the future, personalized interpretation and feedback procedures can be added to the computer-based online intervention to maximize the usefulness of the career construction intervention.

Finally, developing new content and a short career construction interview are necessary. Using career construction theory, the researcher developed a peer motivational interview for at-risk students that included engaging, focusing, evoking, and planning ( Gai et al., 2022 ). Questions include “What do you want to obtain from your future occupation? Why?” “What occupations are you likely to pursue in the future? What occupations are you unlikely to pursue? What occupations are you not sure about whether to pursue? How can you become certain?” Future research needs to focus on particular groups as subjects, focusing on those severely hindered in their career development or career transition, and test the effectiveness of career interviews through group interventions to maximize the effects of career interventions.

However, completing the career construction interview typically requires two 90-min sessions, which hinders its practical use with many students in school. Therefore, Rehfuss and Sickinger (2015) developed a short form of the career construction interview. Only three initial career construction interview questions were used in the short form. “Who did you admire when you were growing up? What are your favorite magazines, TV shows, or websites? Tell me your favorite saying or motto.” These three questions were used to learn about the students’ role models, self-advice to help solve current problems, and preferences for the work environment. In addition, there is a need to develop a short form of the Life Design Group Counseling and MCS. Also, some form of screening is necessary to determine what questions of the career construction intervention will benefit the individual the most.

Career construction theory applies to the current borderless career era, and such a career theory perspective is more helpful for individuals to adapt to the complex and changing career world in the future. Currently, the tools of career construction theory mainly include the structured career construction interview and the qualitative assessment manual of MCS. The interventions of the theory mainly include workshops, group counseling, online group counseling, and individual interviews. This study identified several challenges to the career construction tools and interventions.

Therefore, it offers some suggestions on how to deal with these challenges: Future researchers need to pay attention to the development of comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessments to standardize and stabilize assessment methods for the tools. For the interventions, there is a need to examine the question of what groups and under what conditions career interventions are most effective. Second, future research should develop personalized interpretation and feedback procedures for computerized online interventions in the digital age. Finally, developing new content and a short career construction interview are necessary.

Author contributions

DW: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. YL: Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

This study would like to thank and extend our sincere gratitude to the reviewers.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Barclay, S. R. (2018). Creative use of the career construction interview. Career Dev. Q. 67, 126–138. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12176

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barclay, S. R., and Wolff, L. A. (2012). Exploring the career construction interview for vocational personality assessment. J. Vocat. Behav. 81, 370–377. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.004

Brown, S. D., and Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). “Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: old assumptions and new observations about career counseling” in Handbook of counseling psychology . eds. S. D. Brown and R. W. Lent. 3rd ed (New York, NY: Wiley), 740–766.

Google Scholar

Cadaret, M. C., and Hartung, P. J. (2021). Efficacy of a group career construction intervention with urban youth of colour. Br. J. Guid. Couns. 49, 187–199. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2020.1782347

Camussi, E., Meneghetti, D., Sbarra, M. L., Rella, R., Grigis, P., and Annovazzi, C. (2023). What future are you talking about? Efficacy of life design Psy-lab, as career guidance intervention, to support university students’ needs during COVID-19 emergency. Front. Psychol. 13, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1023738

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cardoso, P., Duarte, M. E., Pacheco, L., and Janeiro, I. N. (2022). Life design group-based intervention fostering vocational identity, career adaptability, and career decision-making self-efficacy. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 17, 1453–1467. doi: 10.18844/cjes.v17iSI.1.6674

Cardoso, P., Janeiro, I. N., and Duarte, M. E. (2018). Life design counseling group intervention with Portuguese adolescents: a process and outcome study. J. Career Dev. 45, 183–196. doi: 10.1177/0894845316687668

Chen, S., Chen, H., Ling, H., and Gu, X. (2022). An online career intervention for promoting Chinese high school students’ career readiness. Front. Psychol. 12, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.815076

Cook, A., and Maree, J. G. (2016). Efficacy of using career and self-construction to help learners manage career-related transitions. S. Afr. J. Educ. 36, 1–11. doi: 10.15700/saje.v36n1a1225

da Silva, R. M., Luna, I. N., Cardoso, P. M. d. S., and Janeiro, I. N. (2022). Effectiveness of career construction counseling in fostering career adaptation strategies. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 23, 681–693. doi: 10.1007/s10775-022-09532-4

Di Fabio, A. (2016). Life design and career counseling innovative outcomes. Career Dev. Q. 64, 35–48. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12039

Gai, X., Gu, T., Wang, Y., and Jia, F. (2022). Improving career adaptability through motivational interview among peers: an intervention of at-risk Chinese college students majoring in foreign language. J. Vocat. Behav. 138:103762. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103762

Gao, Y., and Qiao, Z. (2022). From matching to construction: transformation and realization of high school career education theory under the background of new college entrance examination. Employ. Chin. Univ. Stud. 6, 3–10. doi: 10.20017/j.cnki.1009-0576.2022.06.001

Ginevra, M. C., Di Maggio, I., Nota, L., and Soresi, S. (2017). Stimulating resources to cope with challenging times and new realities: effectiveness of a career intervention. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 17, 77–96. doi: 10.1007/s10775-016-9331-0

Guan, P., and Li, M. (2015). Career construction theory: connotation, framework and applications. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 23, 2177–2186. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.02177

Hartung, P. J., and Santilli, S. (2017). My career story: description and initial validity evidence. J. Career Assess. 26, 308–321. doi: 10.1177/1069072717692980

Hou, H., Hou, Z., and Yang, F. (2014). Narrative career counseling: a new approach of career counseling. Chin. J. Clin. Psych. 22, 555–558. doi: 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2014.03.088

Jin, S. (2007). Career counseling and guidance . Beijing: Higher Education Press.

Langher, V., Nannini, V., and Caputo, A. (2018). What do university or graduate students need to make the cut? A meta-analysis on career intervention effectiveness. Journal of educational. Cult. Psychol. Stud. 17, 21–43. doi: 10.7358/ecps-2018-017-lang

Lindo, N. A., and Ceballos, P. (2019). Child and adolescent career construction: an expressive arts group intervention. J. Creat. Ment. Health 15, 364–377. doi: 10.1080/15401383.2019.1685923

Maree, J. G. (2016). Career construction counseling with a mid-career black man. Career Dev. Q. 64, 20–34. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12038

Maree, J. G. (2019). Group career construction counseling: a mixed-methods intervention study with high school students. Account. Finance 67, 47–61. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12162

Maree, J. G. (2020). Career construction counseling aimed at enhancing the narratability and career resilience of a young girl with a poor sense of self-worth. Early Child Dev. Care 190, 2646–2662. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1622536

Maree, J. G., Cook, A. V., and Fletcher, L. (2017). Assessment of the value of group-based counseling for career construction. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 23, 118–132. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2017.1309324

Maree, J. G., and Gerryts, E. W. (2014). Narrative counseling with a young engineer. J. Psychol. Afr. 24, 457–463. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2014.997020

Maree, J. G., Gerryts, E. W., Fletcher, L., and Olivier, J. (2019). Using career counseling with group life design principles to improve the employability of disadvantaged young adults. J. Psychol. Afr. 29, 110–120. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2019.1594646

Maree, J. G., and Symington, C. (2015). Life design counseling effects on the career adaptability of learners in a selective independent school setting. J. Psychol. Afr. 25, 143–150. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2015.1021531

Maree, J. G., and Twigge, A. (2016). Career and self-construction of emerging adults: the value of life designing. Front. Psychol. 6, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02041

McMahon, M., Bimrose, J., Watson, M., and Abkhezr, P. (2020). Integrating storytelling and quantitative career assessment. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 20, 523–542. doi: 10.1007/s10775-019-09415-1

Nota, L., Santilli, S., and Soresi, S. (2016). A life-design-based online career intervention for early adolescents: description and initial analysis. Career Dev. Q. 64, 4–19. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12037

Obi, O. P. (2015). Constructionist career counseling of undergraduate students: an experimental evaluation. J. Vocat. Behav. 88, 215–219. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.009

Oliver, L. W., and Spokane, A. R. (1988). Career-intervention outcome: what contributes to client gain? J. Couns. Psychol. 35, 447–462. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.35.4.447

Peila-Shuster, J. J., Tandy, K. N., and Gonzalez-Voller, J. (2021). Turning the page: a career construction counseling Group Design for mid-to-Late Career Unemployed Adults. J. Spec. Group Work 46, 172–186. doi: 10.1080/01933922.2021.1900957

Pordelan, N., Hosseinian, S., and Baei Lashaki, A. (2021). Digital storytelling: a tool for life design career intervention. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26, 3445–3457. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10403-0

Pordelan, N., Sadeghi, A., Abedi, M. R., and Kaedi, M. (2018). How online career counseling changes career development: a life design paradigm. Educ. Inf. Technol. 23, 2655–2672. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9735-1

Rehfuss, M. C., and Sickinger, P. H. (2015). Assisting high school students with career indecision using a shortened form of the career construction interview. J. Sch. Couns. 13:6.

Santilli, S., Nota, L., and Hartung, P. J. (2019). Efficacy of a group career construction intervention with early adolescent youth. J. Vocat. Behav. 111, 49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.007

Savickas, M. L. (2005). “The theory and practice of career construction” in Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work . eds. R. W. Lent and S. D. Brown (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 42–70.

Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In Brown, S. D., and Lent, R. W. Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work , 2nd, 147–183. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Savickas, M. L. (2011). Career Counseling . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J. P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., et al. (2009). Life designing: a paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. J. Vocat. Behav. 75, 239–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004

Savickas, M. L., and Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. J. Vocat. Behav. 80, 661–673. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011

Tuttle, B. D., Isenburg, M. V., Schardt, C., and Powers, A. (2009). PubMed instruction for medical students: searching for a better way. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 28, 199–210. doi: 10.1080/02763860903069839

Whiston, S. C. (2011). Vocational counseling and interventions: an exploration of future “big” questions. J. Career Assess. 19, 287–295. doi: 10.1177/1069072710395535

Whiston, S. C., Brecheisen, B. K., and Stephens, J. (2003). Does treatment modality affect career counseling effectiveness? J. Vocat. Behav. 62, 390–410. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00050-7

Whiston, S. C., Li, Y., Goodrich Mitts, N., and Wright, L. (2017). Effectiveness of career choice interventions: a meta-analytic replication and extension. J. Vocat. Behav. 100, 175–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.010

Whiston, S. C., Sexton, T. L., and Lasoff, D. L. (1998). Career-intervention outcome: a replication and extension of Oliver and Spokane (1988). J. Couns. Psychol. 45, 150–165. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.45.2.150

Zammitti, A., Russo, A., Ginevra, M. C., and Magnano, P. (2023). “Imagine your career after the COVID-19 pandemic”: an online group career counseling training for university students. Behav. Sci. 13:48. doi: 10.3390/bs13010048

Keywords: career construction theory, My Career Story, career construction interview, career intervention, future trends

Citation: Wang D and Li Y (2024) Career construction theory: tools, interventions, and future trends. Front. Psychol . 15:1381233. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1381233

Received: 03 February 2024; Accepted: 25 March 2024; Published: 05 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Wang and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yanling Li, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Open access
• Published: 12 December 2023

Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review

• C. E. Hall 1 , 2 ,
• H. Wehling 1 ,
• J. Stansfield 3 ,
• J. South 3 ,
• S. K. Brooks 2 ,
• N. Greenberg 2 , 4 ,
• R. Amlôt 1 &
• D. Weston 1  

BMC Public Health volume  23 , Article number:  2482 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1772 Accesses

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ability of the public to remain psychologically resilient in the face of public health emergencies and disasters (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) is a key factor in the effectiveness of a national response to such events. Community resilience and social capital are often perceived as beneficial and ensuring that a community is socially and psychologically resilient may aid emergency response and recovery. This review presents a synthesis of literature which answers the following research questions: How are community resilience and social capital quantified in research?; What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

A scoping review procedure was followed. Searches were run across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE, with search terms covering both community resilience and social capital, public health emergencies, and mental health. 26 papers met the inclusion criteria.

The majority of retained papers originated in the USA, used a survey methodology to collect data, and involved a natural disaster. There was no common method for measuring community resilience or social capital. The association between community resilience and social capital with mental health was regarded as positive in most cases. However, we found that community resilience, and social capital, were initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies and enhanced by social group activities.

Several key recommendations are proposed based on the outcomes from the review, which include: the need for a standardised and validated approach to measuring both community resilience and social capital; that there should be enhanced effort to improve preparedness to public health emergencies in communities by gauging current levels of community resilience and social capital; that community resilience and social capital should be bolstered if areas are at risk of disasters or public health emergencies; the need to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to communities with high resilience in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster; the importance of conducting robust evaluation of community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Peer Review reports

For the general population, public health emergencies and disasters (e.g., natural disasters; infectious disease outbreaks; Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear incidents) can give rise to a plethora of negative outcomes relating to both health (e.g. increased mental health problems [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]) and the economy (e.g., increased unemployment and decreased levels of tourism [ 4 , 5 , 6 ]). COVID-19 is a current, and ongoing, example of a public health emergency which has affected over 421 million individuals worldwide [ 7 ]. The long term implications of COVID-19 are not yet known, but there are likely to be repercussions for physical health, mental health, and other non-health related outcomes for a substantial time to come [ 8 , 9 ]. As a result, it is critical to establish methods which may inform approaches to alleviate the longer-term negative consequences that are likely to emerge in the aftermath of both COVID-19 and any future public health emergency.

The definition of resilience often differs within the literature, but ultimately resilience is considered a dynamic process of adaptation. It is related to processes and capabilities at the individual, community and system level that result in good health and social outcomes, in spite of negative events, serious threats and hazards [ 10 ]. Furthermore, Ziglio [ 10 ] refers to four key types of resilience capacity: adaptive, the ability to withstand and adjust to unfavourable conditions and shocks; absorptive, the ability to withstand but also to recover and manage using available assets and skills; anticipatory, the ability to predict and minimize vulnerability; and transformative, transformative change so that systems better cope with new conditions.

There is no one settled definition of community resilience (CR). However, it generally relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ]. Social capital (SC) is considered a major determinant of CR [ 12 , 13 ], and reflects strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats. SC is often broken down into further categories [ 15 ], for example: cognitive SC (i.e. perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment) and structural SC (i.e. what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising) [ 16 ]; or, bonding SC (i.e. connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ]) and bridging SC (i.e. acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ]). Generally, CR is perceived to be primarily beneficial for multiple reasons (e.g. increased social support [ 18 , 19 ], protection of mental health [ 20 , 21 ]), and strengthening community resilience is a stated health goal of the World Health Organisation [ 22 ] when aiming to alleviate health inequalities and protect wellbeing. This is also reflected by organisations such as Public Health England (now split into the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) [ 23 ] and more recently, CR has been targeted through the endorsement of Community Champions (who are volunteers trained to support and to help improve health and wellbeing. Community Champions also reflect their local communities in terms of population demographics for example age, ethnicity and gender) as part of the COVID-19 response in the UK (e.g. [ 24 , 25 ]).

Despite the vested interest in bolstering communities, the research base establishing: how to understand and measure CR and SC; the effect of CR and SC, both during and following a public health emergency (such as the COVID-19 pandemic); and which types of CR or SC are the most effective to engage, is relatively small. Given the importance of ensuring resilience against, and swift recovery from, public health emergencies, it is critically important to establish and understand the evidence base for these approaches. As a result, the current review sought to answer the following research questions: (1) How are CR and SC quantified in research?; (2) What is the impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) What is the impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?

By collating research in order to answer these research questions, the authors have been able to propose several key recommendations that could be used to both enhance and evaluate CR and SC effectively to facilitate the long-term recovery from COVID-19, and also to inform the use of CR and SC in any future public health disasters and emergencies.

A scoping review methodology was followed due to the ease of summarising literature on a given topic for policy makers and practitioners [ 26 ], and is detailed in the following sections.

Identification of relevant studies

An initial search strategy was developed by authors CH and DW and included terms which related to: CR and SC, given the absence of a consistent definition of CR, and the link between CR and SC, the review focuses on both CR and SC to identify as much relevant literature as possible (adapted for purpose from Annex 1: [ 27 ], as well as through consultation with review commissioners); public health emergencies and disasters [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ], and psychological wellbeing and recovery (derived a priori from literature). To ensure a focus on both public health and psychological research, the final search was carried across Medline, PsycInfo, and EMBASE using OVID. The final search took place on the 18th of May 2020, the search strategy used for all three databases can be found in Supplementary file 1 .

Selection criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed alongside the search strategy. Initially the criteria were relatively inclusive and were subject to iterative development to reflect the authors’ familiarisation with the literature. For example, the decision was taken to exclude research which focused exclusively on social support and did not mention communities as an initial title/abstract search suggested that the majority of this literature did not meet the requirements of our research question.

The full and final inclusion and exclusion criteria used can be found in Supplementary file 2 . In summary, authors decided to focus on the general population (i.e., non-specialist, e.g. non-healthcare worker or government official) to allow the review to remain community focused. The research must also have assessed the impact of CR and/or SC on mental health and wellbeing, resilience, and recovery during and following public health emergencies and infectious disease outbreaks which affect communities (to ensure the research is relevant to the review aims), have conducted primary research, and have a full text available or provided by the first author when contacted.

Charting the data

All papers were first title and abstract screened by CH or DW. Papers then were full text reviewed by CH to ensure each paper met the required eligibility criteria, if unsure about a paper it was also full text reviewed by DW. All papers that were retained post full-text review were subjected to a standardised data extraction procedure. A table was made for the purpose of extracting the following data: title, authors, origin, year of publication, study design, aim, disaster type, sample size and characteristics, variables examined, results, restrictions/limitations, and recommendations. Supplementary file 3 details the charting the data process.

Analytical method

Data was synthesised using a Framework approach [ 32 ], a common method for analysing qualitative research. This method was chosen as it was originally used for large-scale social policy research [ 33 ] as it seeks to identify: what works, for whom, in what conditions, and why [ 34 ]. This approach is also useful for identifying commonalities and differences in qualitative data and potential relationships between different parts of the data [ 33 ]. An a priori framework was established by CH and DW. Extracted data was synthesised in relation to each research question, and the process was iterative to ensure maximum saturation using the available data.

Study selection

The final search strategy yielded 3584 records. Following the removal of duplicates, 2191 records remained and were included in title and abstract screening. A PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA flow diagram

At the title and abstract screening stage, the process became more iterative as the inclusion criteria were developed and refined. For the first iteration of screening, CH or DW sorted all records into ‘include,’ ‘exclude,’ and ‘unsure’. All ‘unsure’ papers were re-assessed by CH, and a random selection of ~ 20% of these were also assessed by DW. Where there was disagreement between authors the records were retained, and full text screened. The remaining papers were reviewed by CH, and all records were categorised into ‘include’ and ‘exclude’. Following full-text screening, 26 papers were retained for use in the review.

Study characteristics

This section of the review addresses study characteristics of those which met the inclusion criteria, which comprises: date of publication, country of origin, study design, study location, disaster, and variables examined.

Date of publication

Publication dates across the 26 papers spanned from 2008 to 2020 (see Fig.  2 ). The number of papers published was relatively low and consistent across this timescale (i.e. 1–2 per year, except 2010 and 2013 when none were published) up until 2017 where the number of papers peaked at 5. From 2017 to 2020 there were 15 papers published in total. The amount of papers published in recent years suggests a shift in research and interest towards CR and SC in a disaster/ public health emergency context.

Graph to show retained papers date of publication

Country of origin

The locations of the first authors’ institutes at the time of publication were extracted to provide a geographical spread of the retained papers. The majority originated from the USA [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], followed by China [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], Japan [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 , 53 ], The Netherlands [ 54 , 55 ], New Zealand [ 56 ], Peru [ 57 ], Iran [ 58 ], Austria [ 59 ], and Croatia [ 60 ].

There were multiple methodological approaches carried out across retained papers. The most common formats included surveys or questionnaires [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 ], followed by interviews [ 39 , 40 , 43 , 51 , 52 , 60 ]. Four papers used both surveys and interviews [ 35 , 41 , 45 , 58 ], and two papers conducted data analysis (one using open access data from a Social Survey [ 44 ] and one using a Primary Health Organisations Register [ 56 ]).

Study location

The majority of the studies were carried out in Japan [ 36 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ], followed by the USA [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], China [ 43 , 45 , 46 , 53 ], Australia [ 51 , 52 ], and the UK [ 54 , 55 ]. The remaining studies were carried out in Croatia [ 60 ], Peru [ 57 ], Austria [ 59 ], New Zealand [ 56 ] and Iran [ 58 ].

Multiple different types of disaster were researched across the retained papers. Earthquakes were the most common type of disaster examined [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 56 , 57 , 58 ], followed by research which assessed the impact of two disastrous events which had happened in the same area (e.g. Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in Mississippi, and the Great East Japan earthquake and Tsunami; [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 48 ]). Other disaster types included: flooding [ 51 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 ], hurricanes [ 35 , 39 , 41 ], infectious disease outbreaks [ 43 , 46 ], oil spillage [ 40 ], and drought [ 52 ].

Variables of interest examined

Across the 26 retained papers: eight referred to examining the impact of SC [ 35 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 60 ]; eight examined the impact of cognitive and structural SC as separate entities [ 40 , 42 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 54 , 57 , 59 ]; one examined bridging and bonding SC as separate entities [ 58 ]; two examined the impact of CR [ 38 , 56 ]; and two employed a qualitative methodology but drew findings in relation to bonding and bridging SC, and SC generally [ 51 , 52 ]. Additionally, five papers examined the impact of the following variables: ‘community social cohesion’ [ 36 ], ‘neighbourhood connectedness’ [ 44 ], ‘social support at the community level’ [ 47 ], ‘community connectedness’ [ 43 ] and ‘sense of community’ [ 53 ]. Table  1 provides additional details on this.

How is CR and SC measured or quantified in research?

The measures used to examine CR and SC are presented Table  1 . It is apparent that there is no uniformity in how SC or CR is measured across the research. Multiple measures are used throughout the retained studies, and nearly all are unique. Additionally, SC was examined at multiple different levels (e.g. cognitive and structural, bonding and bridging), and in multiple different forms (e.g. community connectedness, community cohesion).

What is the association between CR and SC on mental wellbeing?

To best compare research, the following section reports on CR, and facets of SC separately. Please see Supplementary file 4  for additional information on retained papers methods of measuring mental wellbeing.

• Community resilience

CR relates to the ability of a community to withstand, adapt and permit growth in adverse circumstances due to social structures, networks and interdependencies within the community [ 11 ].

The impact of CR on mental wellbeing was consistently positive. For example, research indicated that there was a positive association between CR and number of common mental health (i.e. anxiety and mood) treatments post-disaster [ 56 ]. Similarly, other research suggests that CR is positively related to psychological resilience, which is inversely related to depressive symptoms) [ 37 ]. The same research also concluded that CR is protective of psychological resilience and is therefore protective of depressive symptoms [ 37 ].

• Social capital

SC reflects the strength of a social network, community reciprocity, and trust in people and institutions [ 14 ]. These aspects of community are usually conceptualised primarily as protective factors that enable communities to cope and adapt collectively to threats.

There were inconsistencies across research which examined the impact of abstract SC (i.e. not refined into bonding/bridging or structural/cognitive) on mental wellbeing. However, for the majority of cases, research deems SC to be beneficial. For example, research has concluded that, SC is protective against post-traumatic stress disorder [ 55 ], anxiety [ 46 ], psychological distress [ 50 ], and stress [ 46 ]. Additionally, SC has been found to facilitate post-traumatic growth [ 38 ], and also to be useful to be drawn upon in times of stress [ 52 ], both of which could be protective of mental health. Similarly, research has also found that emotional recovery following a disaster is more difficult for those who report to have low levels of SC [ 51 ].

Conversely, however, research has also concluded that when other situational factors (e.g. personal resources) were controlled for, a positive relationship between community resources and life satisfaction was no longer significant [ 60 ]. Furthermore, some research has concluded that a high level of SC can result in a community facing greater stress immediately post disaster. Indeed, one retained paper found that high levels of SC correlate with higher levels of post-traumatic stress immediately following a disaster [ 39 ]. However, in the later stages following a disaster, this relationship can reverse, with SC subsequently providing an aid to recovery [ 41 ]. By way of explanation, some researchers have suggested that communities with stronger SC carry the greatest load in terms of helping others (i.e. family, friends and neighbours) as well as themselves immediately following the disaster, but then as time passes the communities recover at a faster rate as they are able to rely on their social networks for support [ 41 ].

Cognitive and structural social capital

Cognitive SC refers to perceptions of community relations, such as trust, mutual help and attachment, and structural SC refers to what actually happens within the community, such as participation, socialising [ 16 ].

Cognitive SC has been found to be protective [ 49 ] against PTSD [ 54 , 57 ], depression [ 40 , 54 ]) mild mood disorder; [ 48 ]), anxiety [ 48 , 54 ] and increase self-efficacy [ 59 ].

For structural SC, research is again inconsistent. On the one hand, structural SC has been found to: increase perceived self-efficacy, be protective of depression [ 40 ], buffer the impact of housing damage on cognitive decline [ 42 ] and provide support during disasters and over the recovery period [ 59 ]. However, on the other hand, it has been found to have no association with PTSD [ 54 , 57 ] or depression, and is also associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety [ 54 ]. Similarly, it is also suggested by additional research that structural SC can harm women’s mental health, either due to the pressure of expectations to help and support others or feelings of isolation [ 49 ].

Bonding and bridging social capital

Bonding SC refers to connections among individuals who are emotionally close, and result in bonds to a particular group [ 17 ], and bridging SC refers to acquaintances or individuals loosely connected that span different social groups [ 18 ].

One research study concluded that both bonding and bridging SC were protective against post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms [ 58 ]. Bridging capital was deemed to be around twice as effective in buffering against post-traumatic stress disorder than bonding SC [ 58 ].

Other community variables

Community social cohesion was significantly associated with a lower risk of post-traumatic stress disorder symptom development [ 35 ], and this was apparent even whilst controlling for depressive symptoms at baseline and disaster impact variables (e.g. loss of family member or housing damage) [ 36 ]. Similarly, sense of community, community connectedness, social support at the community level and neighbourhood connectedness all provided protective benefits for a range of mental health, wellbeing and recovery variables, including: depression [ 53 ], subjective wellbeing (in older adults only) [ 43 ], psychological distress [ 47 ], happiness [ 44 ] and life satisfaction [ 53 ].

Research has also concluded that community level social support is protective against mild mood and anxiety disorder, but only for individuals who have had no previous disaster experience [ 48 ]. Additionally, a study which separated SC into social cohesion and social participation concluded that at a community level, social cohesion is protective against depression [ 49 ] whereas social participation at community level is associated with an increased risk of depression amongst women [ 49 ].

What is the impact of Infectious disease outbreaks / disasters and emergencies on community resilience?

From a cross-sectional perspective, research has indicated that disasters and emergencies can have a negative effect on certain types of SC. Specifically, cognitive SC has been found to be impacted by disaster impact, whereas structural SC has gone unaffected [ 45 ]. Disaster impact has also been shown to have a negative effect on community relationships more generally [ 52 ].

Additionally, of the eight studies which collected data at multiple time points [ 35 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 47 , 49 , 56 , 60 ], three reported the effect of a disaster on the level of SC within a community [ 40 , 42 , 49 ]. All three of these studies concluded that disasters may have a negative impact on the levels of SC within a community. The first study found that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had a negative effect on SC and social support, and this in turn explained an overall increase in the levels of depression within the community [ 40 ]. A possible explanation for the negative effect lays in ‘corrosive communities’, known for increased social conflict and reduced social support, that are sometimes created following oil spills [ 40 ]. It is proposed that corrosive communities often emerge due to a loss of natural resources that bring social groups together (e.g., for recreational activities), as well as social disparity (e.g., due to unequal distribution of economic impact) becoming apparent in the community following disaster [ 40 ]. The second study found that SC (in the form of social cohesion, informal socialising and social participation) decreased after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan; it was suggested that this change correlated with incidence of cognitive decline [ 42 ]. However, the third study reported more mixed effects based on physical circumstances of the communities’ natural environment: Following an earthquake, those who lived in mountainous areas with an initial high level of pre-community SC saw a decrease in SC post disaster [ 49 ]. However, communities in flat areas (which were home to younger residents and had a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. It was proposed that this difference could be due to the need for those who lived in mountainous areas to seek prolonged refuge due to subsequent landslides [ 49 ].

What types of intervention enhance CR and SC and protect survivors?

There were mixed effects across the 26 retained papers when examining the effect of CR and SC on mental wellbeing. However, there is evidence that an increase in SC [ 56 , 57 ], with a focus on cognitive SC [ 57 ], namely by: building social networks [ 45 , 51 , 53 ], enhancing feelings of social cohesion [ 35 , 36 ] and promoting a sense of community [ 53 ], can result in an increase in CR and potentially protect survivors’ wellbeing and mental health following a disaster. An increase in SC may also aid in decreasing the need for individual psychological interventions in the aftermath of a disaster [ 55 ]. As a result, recommendations and suggested methods to bolster CR and SC from the retained papers have been extracted and separated into general methods, preparedness and policy level implementation.

General methods

Suggested methods to build SC included organising recreational activity-based groups [ 44 ] to broaden [ 51 , 53 ] and preserve current social networks [ 42 ], introducing initiatives to increase social cohesion and trust [ 51 ], and volunteering to increase the number of social ties between residents [ 59 ]. Research also notes that it is important to take a ‘no one left behind approach’ when organising recreational and social community events, as failure to do so could induce feelings of isolation for some members of the community [ 49 ]. Furthermore, gender differences should also be considered as research indicates that males and females may react differently to community level SC (as evidence suggests males are instead more impacted by individual level SC; in comparison to women who have larger and more diverse social networks [ 49 ]). Therefore, interventions which aim to raise community level social participation, with the aim of expanding social connections and gaining support, may be beneficial [ 42 , 47 ].

Preparedness

In order to prepare for disasters, it may be beneficial to introduce community-targeted methods or interventions to increase levels of SC and CR as these may aid in ameliorating the consequences of a public health emergency or disaster [ 57 ]. To indicate which communities have low levels of SC, one study suggests implementing a 3-item scale of social cohesion to map areas and target interventions [ 42 ].

It is important to consider that communities with a high level of SC may have a lower level of risk perception, due to the established connections and supportive network they have with those around them [ 61 ]. However, for the purpose of preparedness, this is not ideal as perception of risk is a key factor when seeking to encourage behavioural adherence. This could be overcome by introducing communication strategies which emphasise the necessity of social support, but also highlights the need for additional measures to reduce residual risk [ 59 ]. Furthermore, support in the form of financial assistance to foster current community initiatives may prove beneficial to rural areas, for example through the use of an asset-based community development framework [ 52 ].

Policy level

At a policy level, the included papers suggest a range of ways that CR and SC could be bolstered and used. These include: providing financial support for community initiatives and collective coping strategies, (e.g. using asset-based community development [ 52 ]); ensuring policies for long-term recovery focus on community sustainable development (e.g. community festival and community centre activities) [ 44 ]; and development of a network amongst cooperative corporations formed for reconstruction and to organise self-help recovery sessions among residents of adjacent areas [ 58 ].

This scoping review sought to synthesise literature concerning the role of SC and CR during public health emergencies and disasters. Specifically, in this review we have examined: the methods used to measure CR and SC; the impact of CR and SC on mental wellbeing during disasters and emergencies; the impact of disasters and emergencies on CR and SC; and the types of interventions which can be used to enhance CR. To do this, data was extracted from 26 peer-reviewed journal articles. From this synthesis, several key themes have been identified, which can be used to develop guidelines and recommendations for deploying CR and SC in a public health emergency or disaster context. These key themes and resulting recommendations are summarised below.

Firstly, this review established that there is no consistent or standardised approach to measuring CR or SC within the general population. This finding is consistent with a review conducted by the World Health Organization which concludes that despite there being a number of frameworks that contain indicators across different determinants of health, there is a lack of consensus on priority areas for measurement and no widely accepted indicator [ 27 ]. As a result, there are many measures of CR and SC apparent within the literature (e.g., [ 62 , 63 ]), an example of a developed and validated measure is provided by Sherrieb, Norris and Galea [ 64 ]. Similarly, the definitions of CR and SC differ widely between researchers, which created a barrier to comparing and summarising information. Therefore, future research could seek to compare various interpretations of CR and to identify any overlapping concepts. However, a previous systemic review conducted by Patel et al. (2017) concludes that there are nine core elements of CR (local knowledge, community networks and relationships, communication, health, governance and leadership, resources, economic investment, preparedness, and mental outlook), with 19 further sub-elements therein [ 30 ]. Therefore, as CR is a multi-dimensional construct, the implications from the findings are that multiple aspects of social infrastructure may need to be considered.

Secondly, our synthesis of research concerning the role of CR and SC for ensuring mental health and wellbeing during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster revealed mixed effects. Much of the research indicates either a generally protective effect on mental health and wellbeing, or no effect; however, the literature demonstrates some potential for a high level of CR/SC to backfire and result in a negative effect for populations during, or following, a public health emergency or disaster. Considered together, our synthesis indicates that cognitive SC is the only facet of SC which was perceived as universally protective across all retained papers. This is consistent with a systematic review which also concludes that: (a) community level cognitive SC is associated with a lower risk of common mental disorders, while; (b) community level structural SC had inconsistent effects [ 65 ].

Further examination of additional data extracted from studies which found that CR/SC had a negative effect on mental health and wellbeing revealed no commonalities that might explain these effects (Please see Supplementary file 5 for additional information)

One potential explanation may come from a retained paper which found that high levels of SC result in an increase in stress level immediately post disaster [ 41 ]. This was suggested to be due to individuals having greater burdens due to wishing to help and support their wide networks as well as themselves. However, as time passes the levels of SC allow the community to come together and recover at a faster rate [ 41 ]. As this was the only retained paper which produced this finding, it would be beneficial for future research to examine boundary conditions for the positive effects of CR/SC; that is, to explore circumstances under which CR/SC may be more likely to put communities at greater risk. This further research should also include additional longitudinal research to validate the conclusions drawn by [ 41 ] as resilience is a dynamic process of adaption.

Thirdly, disasters and emergencies were generally found to have a negative effect on levels of SC. One retained paper found a mixed effect of SC in relation to an earthquake, however this paper separated participants by area in which they lived (i.e., mountainous vs. flat), which explains this inconsistent effect [ 49 ]. Dangerous areas (i.e. mountainous) saw a decrease in community SC in comparison to safer areas following the earthquake (an effect the authors attributed to the need to seek prolonged refuge), whereas participants from the safer areas (which are home to younger residents with a higher population density) saw an increase in SC [ 49 ]. This is consistent with the idea that being able to participate socially is a key element of SC [ 12 ]. Overall, however, this was the only retained paper which produced a variable finding in relation to the effect of disaster on levels of CR/SC.

Finally, research identified through our synthesis promotes the idea of bolstering SC (particularly cognitive SC) and cohesion in communities likely to be affected by disaster to improve levels of CR. This finding provides further understanding of the relationship between CR and SC; an association that has been reported in various articles seeking to provide conceptual frameworks (e.g., [ 66 , 67 ]) as well as indicator/measurement frameworks [ 27 ]. Therefore, this could be done by creating and promoting initiatives which foster SC and create bonds within the community. Papers included in the current review suggest that recreational-based activity groups and volunteering are potential methods for fostering SC and creating community bonds [ 44 , 51 , 59 ]. Similarly, further research demonstrates that feelings of social cohesion are enhanced by general social activities (e.g. fairs and parades [ 18 ]). Also, actively encouraging activities, programs and interventions which enhance connectedness and SC have been reported to be desirable to increase CR [ 68 ]. This suggestion is supported by a recent scoping review of literature [ 67 ] examined community champion approaches for the COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery and established that creating and promoting SC focused initiatives within the community during pandemic response is highly beneficial [ 67 ]. In terms of preparedness, research states that it may be beneficial for levels of SC and CR in communities at risk to be assessed, to allow targeted interventions where the population may be at most risk following an incident [ 42 , 44 ]. Additionally, from a more critical perspective, we acknowledge that ‘resilience’ can often be perceived as a focus on individual capacity to adapt to adversity rather than changing or mitigating the causes of adverse conditions [ 69 , 70 ]. Therefore, CR requires an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels [ 17 ]. Also, it is important that community members are engaged in defining and agreeing how community resilience is measured [ 27 ] rather than it being imposed by system leads or decision-makers.

In the aftermath of the pandemic, is it expected that there will be long-term repercussions both from an economic [ 8 ] and a mental health perspective [ 71 ]. Furthermore, the findings from this review suggest that although those in areas with high levels of SC may be negatively affected in the acute stage, as time passes, they have potential to rebound at a faster rate than those with lower levels of SC. Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of current initiatives as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses into a recovery phase will be invaluable for supplementing the evidence base identified through this review.

• Recommendations

As a result of this review, a number of recommendations are suggested for policy and practice during public health emergencies and recovery.

Future research should seek to establish a standardised and validated approach to measuring and defining CR and SC within communities. There are ongoing efforts in this area, for example [ 72 ]. Additionally, community members should be involved in the process of defining how CR is measured.

There should be an enhanced effort to improve preparedness for public health emergencies and disasters in local communities by gauging current levels of SC and CR within communities using a standardised measure. This approach could support specific targeting of populations with low levels of CR/SC in case of a disaster or public health emergency, whilst also allowing for consideration of support for those with high levels of CR (as these populations can be heavily impacted initially following a disaster). By distinguishing levels of SC and CR, tailored community-centred approaches could be implemented, such as those listed in a guide released by PHE in 2015 [ 73 ].

CR and SC (specifically cognitive SC) should be bolstered if communities are at risk of experiencing a disaster or public health emergency. This can be achieved by using interventions which aim to increase a sense of community and create new social ties (e.g., recreational group activities, volunteering). Additionally, when aiming to achieve this, it is important to be mindful of the risk of increased levels of CR/SC to backfire, as well as seeking to advocate an integrated system approach across individual, community and structural levels.

It is necessary to be aware that although communities with high existing levels of resilience / SC may experience short-term negative consequences following a disaster, over time these communities might be able to recover at a faster rate. It is therefore important to ensure that suitable short-term support is provided to these communities in the immediate aftermath of a public health emergency or disaster.

Robust evaluation of the community resilience initiatives deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic response is essential to inform the evidence base concerning the effectiveness of CR/ SC. These evaluations should continue through the response phase and into the recovery phase to help develop our understanding of the long-term consequences of such interventions.

Limitations

Despite this review being the first in this specific topic area, there are limitations that must be considered. Firstly, it is necessary to note that communities are generally highly diverse and the term ‘community’ in academic literature is a subject of much debate (see: [ 74 ]), therefore this must be considered when comparing and collating research involving communities. Additionally, the measures of CR and SC differ substantially across research, including across the 26 retained papers used in the current review. This makes the act of comparing and collating research findings very difficult. This issue is highlighted as a key outcome from this review, and suggestions for how to overcome this in future research are provided. Additionally, we acknowledge that there will be a relationship between CR & SC even where studies measure only at individual or community level. A review [ 75 ] on articulating a hypothesis of the link to health inequalities suggests that wider structural determinants of health need to be accounted for. Secondly, despite the final search strategy encompassing terms for both CR and SC, only one retained paper directly measured CR; thus, making the research findings more relevant to SC. Future research could seek to focus on CR to allow for a comparison of findings. Thirdly, the review was conducted early in the COVID-19 pandemic and so does not include more recent publications focusing on resilience specifically in the context of COVID-19. Regardless of this fact, the synthesis of, and recommendations drawn from, the reviewed studies are agnostic to time and specific incident and contain critical elements necessary to address as the pandemic moves from response to recovery. Further research should review the effectiveness of specific interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic for collation in a subsequent update to this current paper. Fourthly, the current review synthesises findings from countries with individualistic and collectivistic cultures, which may account for some variation in the findings. Lastly, despite choosing a scoping review method for ease of synthesising a wide literature base for use by public health emergency researchers in a relatively tight timeframe, there are disadvantages of a scoping review approach to consider: (1) quality appraisal of retained studies was not carried out; (2) due to the broad nature of a scoping review, more refined and targeted reviews of literature (e.g., systematic reviews) may be able to provide more detailed research outcomes. Therefore, future research should seek to use alternative methods (e.g., empirical research, systematic reviews of literature) to add to the evidence base on CR and SC impact and use in public health practice.

This review sought to establish: (1) How CR and SC are quantified in research?; (2) The impact of community resilience on mental wellbeing?; (3) The impact of infectious disease outbreaks, disasters and emergencies on community resilience and social capital?; and, (4) What types of interventions enhance community resilience and social capital?. The chosen search strategy yielded 26 relevant papers from which we were able extract information relating to the aims of this review.

Results from the review revealed that CR and SC are not measured consistently across research. The impact of CR / SC on mental health and wellbeing during emergencies and disasters is mixed (with some potential for backlash), however the literature does identify cognitive SC as particularly protective. Although only a small number of papers compared CR or SC before and after a disaster, the findings were relatively consistent: SC or CR is negatively impacted by a disaster. Methods suggested to bolster SC in communities were centred around social activities, such as recreational group activities and volunteering. Recommendations for both research and practice (with a particular focus on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic) are also presented.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Social Capital

Zortea TC, Brenna CT, Joyce M, McClelland H, Tippett M, Tran MM, et al. The impact of infectious disease-related public health emergencies on suicide, suicidal behavior, and suicidal thoughts. Crisis. 2020;42(6):474–87.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davis JR, Wilson S, Brock-Martin A, Glover S, Svendsen ER. The impact of disasters on populations with health and health care disparities. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2010;4(1):30.

Article   Google Scholar  

Francescutti LH, Sauve M, Prasad AS. Natural disasters and healthcare: lessons to be learned. Healthc Manage Forum. 2017;30(1):53–5.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jones L, Palumbo D, Brown D. Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy. BBC News; 2021. Accessible at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51706225 .

Below R, Wallemacq P. Annual disaster statistical review 2017. Brussels: CRED, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Qiu W, Chu C, Mao A, Wu J. The impacts on health, society, and economy of SARS and H7N9 outbreaks in China: a case comparison study. J Environ Public Health. 2018;2018:2710185.

Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. 2021.

Harari D, Keep M. Coronavirus: economic impact house of commons library. Briefing Paper (Number 8866); 2021. Accessible at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8866/ .

Nabavi N. Covid-19: pandemic will cast a long shadow on mental health, warns England’s CMO. BMJ. 2021;373:n1655.

Ziglio E. Strengthening resilience: a priority shared by health 2020 and the sustainable development goals. No. WHO/EURO: 2017-6509-46275-66939. World Health Organization; Regional Office for Europe; 2017.

Asadzadeh A, Kotter T, Salehi P, Birkmann J. Operationalizing a concept: the systematic review of composite indicator building for measuring community disaster resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2017;25:147.

Sherrieb K, Norris F, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indicators Res. 2010;99(2):227.

Poortinga W. Community resilience and health: the role of bonding, bridging, and linking aspects of social capital. Health Place. 2011;18(2):286–95.

Ferlander S. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociol. 2007;50(2):115–28.

Nakagawa Y, Shaw R. Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery. Int J Mass Emerge Disasters. 2004;22(1):5–34.

Grootaert C, Narayan D, Jones VN, Woolcock M. Measuring social capital: an integrated questionnaire. Washington, DC: World Bank Working Paper, No. 18; 2004.

Adler PS, Kwon SW. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manage Rev. 2002;27(1):17–40.

Aldrich DP, Meyer MA. Social capital and community resilience. Am Behav Sci. 2015;59(2):254–69.

Rodriguez-Llanes JM, Vos F, Guha-Sapir D. Measuring psychological resilience to disasters: are evidence-based indicators an achievable goal? Environ Health. 2013;12(1):115.

De Silva MJ, McKenzie K, Harpham T, Huttly SR. Social capital and mental Illness: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–27.

Bonanno GA, Galea S, Bucciarelli A, Vlahov D. Psychological resilience after disaster: New York City in the aftermath of the september 11th terrorist attack. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):181.

World Health Organization. Health 2020: a European policy framework and strategy for the 21st century. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2013.

Public Health England. Community-Centred Public Health: Taking a Whole System Approach. 2020.

SPI-B. The role of Community Champion networks to increase engagement in the context of COVID19: Evidence and best practice. 2021.

Public Health England. Community champions: A rapid scoping review of community champion approaches for the pandemic response and recovery. 2021.

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

World Health Organisation. WHO health evidence network synthesis report: what quantitative and qualitative methods have been developed to measure health-related community resilience at a national and local level. 2018.

Hall C, Williams N, Gauntlett L, Carter H, Amlôt R, Peterson L et al. Findings from systematic review of public perceptions and responses. PROACTIVE EU. Deliverable 1.1. 2019. Accessible at: https://proactive-h2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PROACTIVE_20210312_D1.1_V5_PHE_Systematic-Review-of-Public-Perceptions-and-Responses_revised.pdf .

Weston D, Ip A, Amlôt R. Examining the application of behaviour change theories in the context of Infectious disease outbreaks and emergency response: a review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1483.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Patel SS, Rogers MB, Amlôt R, Rubin GJ. What do we mean by ‘community resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the literature. PLoS Curr. 2017;9:ecurrents.dis.db775aff25efc5ac4f0660ad9c9f7db2.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brooks SK, Weston D, Wessely S, Greenberg N. Effectiveness and acceptability of brief psychoeducational interventions after potentially traumatic events: a systematic review. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2021;12(1):1923110.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):21–34.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:1–8.

Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252–60.

Heid AR, Pruchno R, Cartwright FP, Wilson-Genderson M. Exposure to Hurricane Sandy, neighborhood collective efficacy, and post-traumatic stress symptoms in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(7):742–50.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Can community social cohesion prevent posttraumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of a disaster? A natural experiment from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183(10):902–10.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Cochran DM, Kar B, Rehner TA, Gunnell MS. Community resilience, psychological resilience, and depressive symptoms: an examination of the Mississippi Gulf Coast 10 years after Hurricane Katrina and 5 years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Disaster med. 2018;12(2):241–8.

Lee J, Blackmon BJ, Lee JY, Cochran DM Jr, Rehner TA. An exploration of posttraumatic growth, loneliness, depression, resilience, and social capital among survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the deepwater Horizon oil spill. J Community Psychol. 2019;47(2):356–70.

Lowe SR, Sampson L, Gruebner O, Galea S. Psychological resilience after Hurricane Sandy: the influence of individual- and community-level factors on mental health after a large-scale natural disaster. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125761.

Rung AL, Gaston S, Robinson WT, Trapido EJ, Peters ES. Untangling the disaster-depression knot: the role of social ties after deepwater Horizon. Soc Sci Med. 2017;177:19–26.

Weil F, Lee MR, Shihadeh ES. The burdens of social capital: how socially-involved people dealt with stress after Hurricane Katrina. Soc Sci Res. 2012;41(1):110–9.

Hikichi H, Aida J, Matsuyama Y, Tsuboya T, Kondo K, Kawachi I. Community-level social capital and cognitive decline after a Natural Disaster: a natural experiment from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Soc Sci Med. 2018;257:111981.

Lau AL, Chi I, Cummins RA, Lee TM, Chou KL, Chung LW. The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) pandemic in Hong Kong: effects on the subjective wellbeing of elderly and younger people. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12(6):746–60.

Sun Y, Yan T. The use of public health indicators to assess individual happiness in post-disaster recovery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4101.

Wong H, Huang Y, Fu Y, Zhang Y. Impacts of structural social capital and cognitive social capital on the psychological status of survivors of the yaan Earthquake. Appl Res Qual Life. 2018;14:1411–33.

Xiao H, Zhang Y, Kong D, Li S, Yang N. Social capital and sleep quality in individuals who self-isolated for 14 days during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in January 2020 in China. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e923921.

PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Matsuyama Y, Aida J, Hase A, Sato Y, Koyama S, Tsuboya T, et al. Do community- and individual-level social relationships contribute to the mental health of disaster survivors? A multilevel prospective study after the great East Japan earthquake. Soc Sci Med. 2016;151:187–95.

Ozaki A, Horiuchi S, Kobayashi Y, Inoue M, Aida J, Leppold C, Yamaoka K. Beneficial roles of social support for mental health vary in the Japanese population depending on disaster experience: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018;246(4):213–23.

Sato K, Amemiya A, Haseda M, Takagi D, Kanamori M, Kondo K, et al. Post-disaster changes in Social Capital and Mental Health: a natural experiment from the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(9):910–21.

Tsuchiya N, Nakaya N, Nakamura T, Narita A, Kogure M, Aida J, Tsuji I, Hozawa A, Tomita H. Impact of social capital on psychological distress and interaction with house destruction and displacement after the great East Japan earthquake of 2011. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;71(1):52–60.

Brockie L, Miller E. Understanding older adults’ resilience during the Brisbane floods: social capital, life experience, and optimism. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2017;11(1):72–9.

Caldwell K, Boyd CP. Coping and resilience in farming families affected by drought. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9(2):1088.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Huang Y, Tan NT, Liu J. Support, sense of community, and psychological status in the survivors of the Yaan earthquake. J Community Psychol. 2016;44(7):919–36.

Wind T, Fordham M, Komproe H. Social capital and post-disaster mental health. Glob Health Action. 2011;4(1):6351.

Wind T, Komproe IH. The mechanisms that associate community social capital with post-disaster mental health: a multilevel model. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75(9):1715–20.

Hogg D, Kingham S, Wilson TM, Ardagh M. The effects of spatially varying earthquake impacts on mood and anxiety symptom treatments among long-term Christchurch residents following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes, New Zealand. Health Place. 2016;41:78–88.

Flores EC, Carnero AM, Bayer AM. Social capital and chronic post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors of the 2007 earthquake in Pisco, Peru. Soc Sci Med. 2014;101:9–17.

Rafiey H, Alipour F, LeBeau R, Salimi Y, Ahmadi S. Exploring the buffering role of social capital in the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms among Iranian earthquake survivors. Psychol Trauma. 2019;14(6):1040–6.

Babcicky P, Seebauer S. The two faces of social capital in private Flood mitigation: opposing effects on risk perception, self-efficacy and coping capacity. J Risk Res. 2017;20(8):1017–37.

Bakic H, Ajdukovic D. Stability and change post-disaster: dynamic relations between individual, interpersonal and community resources and psychosocial functioning. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019;10(1):1614821.

Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93–114.

Lindberg K, Swearingen T. A reflective thrive-oriented community resilience scale. Am J Community Psychol. 2020;65(3–4):467–78.

Leykin D, Lahad M, Cohen O, Goldberg A, Aharonson-Daniel L. Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): a self-report tool for assessing community resilience. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;52:313–23.

Sherrieb K, Norris FH, Galea S. Measuring capacities for community resilience. Soc Indic Res. 2010;99:227–47.

Ehsan AM, De Silva MJ. Social capital and common mental disorder: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;69(10):1021–8.

Pfefferbaum B, Van Horn RL, Pfefferbaum RL. A conceptual framework to enhance community resilience using social capital. Clin Soc Work J. 2017;45(2):102–10.

Carmen E, Fazey I, Ross H, Bedinger M, Smith FM, Prager K, et al. Building community resilience in a context of climate change: the role of social capital. Ambio. 2022;51(6):1371–87.

Humbert C, Joseph J. Introduction: the politics of resilience: problematising current approaches. Resilience. 2019;7(3):215–23.

Tanner T, Bahadur A, Moench M. Challenges for resilience policy and practice. Working paper: 519. 2017.

Vadivel R, Shoib S, El Halabi S, El Hayek S, Essam L, Bytyçi DG. Mental health in the post-COVID-19 era: challenges and the way forward. Gen Psychiatry. 2021;34(1):e100424.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pryor M. Social Capital Harmonised Standard. London: Government Statistical Service. 2021. Accessible at: https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/policystore/social-capital/ .

Public Health England NE. A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing. 2015.

Hawe P. Capturing the meaning of ‘community’ in community intervention evaluation: some contributions from community psychology. Health Promot Int. 1994;9(3):199–210.

Uphoff EP, Pickett KE, Cabieses B, Small N, Wright J. A systematic review of the relationships between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health: a contribution to understanding the psychosocial pathway of health inequalities. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:1–12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Public Health England, the UK Health Security Agency or the Department of Health and Social Care [Grant number: NIHR20008900]. Part of this work has been funded by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, as part of a Collaborative Agreement with Leeds Beckett University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Behavioural Science and Insights Unit, Evaluation & Translation Directorate, Science Group, UK Health Security Agency, Porton Down, Salisbury, SP4 0JG, UK

C. E. Hall, H. Wehling, R. Amlôt & D. Weston

Health Protection Research Unit, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

C. E. Hall, S. K. Brooks & N. Greenberg

School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Portland Building, PD519, Portland Place, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK

J. Stansfield & J. South

King’s Centre for Military Health Research, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King’s College London, 10 Cutcombe Road, London, SE5 9RJ, UK

N. Greenberg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

DW, JSo and JSt had the main idea for the review. The search strategy and eligibility criteria were devised by CH, DW, JSo and JSt. CH conducted the database searches. CH and DW conducted duplicate, title and abstract and full text screening in accordance with inclusion criteria. CH conducted data extraction, CH and DW carried out the analysis and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors provided critical revision of intellectual content. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to D. Weston .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., additional file 4., additional file 5., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hall, C.E., Wehling, H., Stansfield, J. et al. Examining the role of community resilience and social capital on mental health in public health emergency and disaster response: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 23 , 2482 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Download citation

Received : 04 April 2022

Accepted : 16 November 2023

Published : 12 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17242-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Community cohesion
• Public health emergency

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 March 2024

Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals

• Andrew Macintosh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5700-7105 1 ,
• Don Butler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6019-1078 1 ,
• Pablo Larraondo 2 ,
• Megan C. Evans 3 ,
• Dean Ansell 1 ,
• Marie Waschka   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-4574-4834 1 ,
• Rod Fensham   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3658-5867 4 ,
• David Eldridge   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2191-486X 5 ,
• David Lindenmayer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4766-4088 1 ,
• Philip Gibbons 1 &
• Paul Summerfield 1  

Communications Earth & Environment volume  5 , Article number:  149 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

735 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Environmental studies

Carbon offsets are a widely used climate policy instrument that can reduce mitigation costs and generate important environmental and social co-benefits. However, they can increase emissions if they lack integrity. We analysed the performance of one of the world’s largest nature-based offset types: human-induced regeneration projects under Australia’s carbon offset scheme. The projects are supposed to involve the human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests through changes in land management. We analysed 182 projects and found limited evidence of regeneration in credited areas. Changes in woody vegetation cover within the areas that have been credited also largely mirror changes in adjacent comparison areas, outside the projects, suggesting the observable changes are predominantly attributable to factors other than the project activities. The results add to the growing literature highlighting the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional and potentially impermanent.

Similar content being viewed by others

Meta-analysis shows the impacts of ecological restoration on greenhouse gas emissions

Tiehu He, Weixin Ding, … Quanfa Zhang

Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration

Natalia Hasler, Christopher A. Williams, … Susan C. Cook-Patton

Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions

B. Buma, D. R. Gordon, … S. P. Hamburg

Introduction

Carbon offsets are a widely used climate policy instrument that are considered integral to government and corporate decarbonisation plans 1 , 2 , 3 . Under offset schemes, projects that reduce emissions relative to counterfactual baselines receive credits, which can be used by others to offset their emissions. The benefits of offsets include that they can reduce mitigation costs, generate important environmental and social co-benefits, and reduce political resistance to carbon pricing by lowering compliance costs for facilities with carbon liabilities 4 , 5 , 6 .

Whether the environmental and economic benefits of offsets materialise depends on the environmental integrity of the credits. If the credits lack integrity, offsets can facilitate increases in emissions and thereby work against greenhouse gas mitigation objectives. Carbon offsets are considered to have environmental integrity when there is high confidence they represent real, additional and permanent abatement 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 . In this context, ‘realness’ refers to the extent to which credits reflect carbon removals or emission reductions that are directly attributable to the project activities 1 , 9 , 10 . ‘Additionality’ requires that the credited removals or emission reductions would not have occurred without the incentive provided by the offset scheme 11 . Permanence relates exclusively to sequestration projects and requires credited removals to persist in relevant carbon stocks like vegetation and soils 9 , 11 , 12 .

Research on the integrity of carbon offsets has found material issues with the realness, additionality and permanence of credited abatement, raising questions about their effectiveness in assisting decarbonisation 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 . Similar issues have arisen with biodiversity offsets 26 , 27 .

Carbon offsets have been a central feature of climate policy in Australia for two decades. Under a provincial mandatory carbon trading scheme (the world’s first) that operated in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory between 2003 and 2012 covered facilities were allowed to use offsets from designated project types to meet their emission reduction obligations 28 . In late 2011, a national carbon offset scheme was introduced, which was relied upon as the main Australian Government mitigation policy between 2014 and 2022 29 . The object of the national offset scheme is to incentivise offset projects that help Australia meet its international greenhouse gas mitigation obligations 29 . Each credit issued under the scheme is supposed to represent abatement equivalent to one tonne of CO 2 .

The national offset scheme is now linked to a national mandatory carbon pricing instrument; the Safeguard Mechanism. As with the previous provincial carbon trading scheme, facilities covered by the Safeguard Mechanism can use credits issued under the offset scheme to meet their emission reduction obligations. There are no restrictions on the extent to which covered facilities can rely on offset credits to meet their obligations. The only relevant restriction is that the credits must come from projects registered under the national scheme.

The most popular project type under the national offset scheme is human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests (HIR) 30 . HIR projects received 37 million credits to June 2023, almost 30% of the issuances under the scheme 31 . The projects cover almost 42 million hectares, an area larger than Japan 31 . As of 30 June 2023, they were the world’s fifth largest nature-based offset type by credit issuances, and the largest when projects involving avoided emissions are excluded (Supplementary Fig. S 1 ).

Under the applicable rules (found in the ‘HIR method’), HIR projects should involve the human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests across the entirety of the areas that are credited (‘credited areas’) (Fig.  1 ) 30 . The projects do not involve planting or direct seeding. Regeneration must be induced by the project activities from ‘the germination of in situ seed, or the growth of in situ seedlings, rootstock or lignotuber’ 30 . The project activities can include reducing grazing pressure from livestock and feral animals, management of non-native plants, and cessation of clearing of native plant regrowth 30 , 32 , 33 .

In the baseline scenario (yellow ribbon), clearing, grazing and/or weeds suppress regeneration of woody plants, ensuring the credited area has predominantly non-woody cover throughout the projection period. In the project scenario (black-red ribbon), the credited area initially has predominantly non-woody cover due to the effects of clearing, grazing and/or weeds. The project involves the removal or mitigation of these suppressors, which leads to even-aged forest regeneration. The credited area should transition from predominantly non-woody cover to predominantly sparse woody cover, and then to forest cover, and retain forest cover throughout the permanence period. In the regions where HIR projects are located, credited areas should have forest cover when tree and debris biomass reaches ~7.2–11 dry metric tonnes (dmt) per hectare.

Sequestration in HIR projects is not directly measured, it is estimated as the product of the size of the credited areas and sequestration per unit area, which is modelled using the Australian Government’s Full Carbon Accounting Model 34 . The model uses a simple tree yield formula to estimate above-ground biomass per hectare in regenerating forests 35 , 36 , 37 . It assumes credited areas start with little woody biomass and grow towards their maximum woody biomass potential under native vegetation. Maximum above-ground woody biomass potential ( M ) is modelled spatially using a range of biophysical parameters calibrated against measurements of intact native vegetation 38 . The most recent calibration of the tree yield formula estimates above-ground biomass in regeneration under average climate conditions after a years to be M.e (−23.81/a) (Supplementary Fig. S 2 ) 37 .

The above-ground biomass estimates from the model’s tree yield formula are partitioned into biomass and debris pools via standardised allocation ratios (e.g. root-shoot), and turnover and decomposition rates, to calculate carbon accumulation in live above- and below-ground biomass and debris 39 . The model includes a soil carbon module but it is not used for HIR projects; the projects are credited for increases only in live biomass and dead organic matter.

Most HIR projects are claiming to regenerate native forests by reducing grazing pressure from livestock and/or feral herbivores in arid and semi-arid ‘rangeland’ areas (<350 mm average annual rainfall) that have never been comprehensively cleared of native vegetation (Fig.  2 , Supplementary Fig. S 3 ). The location of the projects in uncleared rangelands (where there is often limited and highly variable rainfall) raises questions about the capacity of the credited areas to permanently support material additional woody biomass, and the realness, additionality and permanence of credited abatement 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 .

The 182 projects analysed in this paper in light green. Source: Australian Government. Area-based Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) projects. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023); Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) data products, version 6. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023); New South Wales Government. NSW State Vegetation Type Map. NSW Government, Sydney (2023); Geoscience Australia. GEODATA COAST 100K 2004. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023).

Plant growth is constrained by the availability of resources (water, nutrients, light etc.), which limit woody biomass potential under native vegetation 44 , 45 , 46 . In most of Australia’s uncleared rangelands, the key limiting resource is water and its availability depends on variable rainfall, which fluctuates over time-scales from months to decades 47 . Variations in rainfall and water availability drive changes in plant growth, including woody biomass 47 , 48 .

The primary way grazing could affect forest cover in uncleared areas is by impeding woody plant recruitment during recovery after periods of drought or fires, where cover has been lost through tree death 49 , 50 , 51 . For grazing to prevent the regeneration of forests in these circumstances, grazing intensity after a mortality event would need to be sufficiently intense to prevent recruitment and then be maintained over multiple decades to suppress subsequent recruitment. Grazing in Australia’s uncleared rangelands has been shown to have local, short-term effects on regeneration, but assessments over larger spatial and temporal scales show that grazing has not generally reduced tree cover 52 , and that the influence of grazing alone on woody plants is minimal compared to the effect of variable rainfall 53 , 54 , 55 .

This is illustrated through the well-documented increase in tree cover that occurred across substantial parts of Australia’s grazed eastern rangelands through the twentieth century, particularly following a series of La Niña events from the 1950s that brought above-average rainfall 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 . Similarly, more than 300,000 ha of secondary native forest is re-cleared annually in Australia in areas previously cleared for grazing 39 , 60 , 61 , typically on cycles of around 8–30 years 53 , 60 . This re-clearing would not be necessary if grazing was suppressing regeneration of native forests.

Because grazing does not have a material negative influence on tree cover in Australia’s rangelands, HIR projects are unlikely to regenerate permanent native forest through grazing control in uncleared areas. In some cases, reduced grazing could increase tree cover but, generally, any management-induced increases are likely to be relatively small and often short-lived (since droughts can remove excess biomass accumulated during wet times) 62 .

The modelling approach used to calculate abatement for HIR projects compounds the resulting integrity risks. Projects could be credited for forest regeneration that has not occurred or that does not persist. The HIR method also does not control for the over-riding impacts of rainfall on regeneration in the rangelands, creating a risk that projects will be credited for increases in tree cover that are mainly attributable to natural variations in rainfall rather than the project activities (i.e. non-additional) 42 , 43 .

Here we present the results of an analysis of HIR projects conducted using the Australian Government’s National Forest and Sparse Woody (NFSW) dataset (Version 7.0) 63 . The dataset provides Landsat-derived estimates of the spatial extent of three classes of woody vegetation cover across Australia over the period 1988 to 2022. The data are a near-annual time series in which 25 m grid cells are classified as either non-woody, sparse woody (sub-forest woody cover where crown cover is between 5–19%) or forest (woody vegetation ≥2 m tall with crown cover >20% over at least 0.2 ha).

The object of our analysis was to assess the performance of HIR projects using two metrics:

the extent of the increase in forest cover and ‘woody cover’ (areas with either forest or sparse woody cover) in the credited areas of HIR projects; and

the extent to which changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas of HIR projects have mirrored trends in paired controls for each project, comprising 3 km wide buffer areas outside the project boundaries that exclude areas in other HIR projects (‘comparison areas’).

Metric (1) provides a proxy measure of the likely increases in woody biomass in the credited areas of HIR projects. When combined with data on credit issuances, it serves as an indicator of over-crediting risk (i.e. whether sequestered CO 2 is likely to be materially less than credited sequestration). Metric (2) provides a measure of the extent to which changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas of HIR projects are additional to what would otherwise have occurred (i.e. attributable to the project activities or other factors such as rainfall variability). Together, metrics (1) and (2) provide a basis on which to draw conclusions about the extent to which HIR projects have helped Australia meet its international mitigation obligations, consistent with the scheme’s objectives 29 .

Published estimates of the accuracy of the classifications of pixels to forest, sparse or non-woody in the NFSW dataset suggest accuracy of 95% or more for forest and non-woody classes where no change is indicated, with lower confidence for classification of sparse woody pixels (~66%) 39 , 64 . Error rates are likely to be somewhat higher for classification of changes between years, but there is also no reason to expect biases in error between credited areas and comparison areas used in our analysis. Notably, the Australian Government relies on the NFSW dataset to estimate land sector emissions and removals in its greenhouse accounts 39 . Greenhouse gas outcomes from changes in tree cover in Australia’s rangelands are not accounted for in Australia’s greenhouse accounts if they are not detected in the NFSW dataset. The fact that the Australian Government relies on the NFSW dataset to track reforestation and revegetation for greenhouse accounting purposes justifies its use to assess outcomes from HIR projects.

All HIR projects whose credited area location data were published as of 22 June 2023 and that were registered in or before 2018 (providing at least four data points in the NFSW time series post registration) were included in the analysis, except where they were completely surrounded by other projects or the published spatial files were corrupt 65 , 66 . The projects ( n  = 182) included in the analysis covered a combined area of 9.5 M ha, with their credited areas covering 3.4 M ha (Fig.  2 , Table  1 ). The projects in the sample were registered over the period 11 December 2013 to 30 November 2018, with most (75%) registered in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (Supplementary Fig. S 4 ).

Change in forest and sparse woody cover

The analysed projects received 27.4 million credits over the period from 11 December 2013 (when the first HIR project was registered) to 30 June 2022, suggesting a substantial proportion of the credited areas should have transitioned from non-woody cover to either sparse woody or forest cover because of the human-induced forest regeneration 31 . This has not occurred.

Almost 50% of the credited areas had sparse woody or forest cover when the projects were registered (median woody cover 46.5% (sd 22.5%), median forest cover 12.7% (sd 12.9%)). This is problematic as it indicates that most projects are seeking to regenerate permanent even-aged native forests on land that contained material amounts of pre-existing woody vegetation. Competition from the pre-existing woody vegetation is likely to limit additional forest regeneration.

Consistent with this, there was relatively little change in woody cover in the credited areas over the study period. Almost 80% of projects ( n  = 143) experienced negative or negligible change in woody cover in the credited areas over the period from project registration to 2022 (Table  1 , see methods for definitions of negative, negligible and positive woody cover change). Despite the absence of positive woody cover change, these 143 projects received 22.9 million credits over the period 31 .

At an aggregate level, woody cover increased by a mere 0.8% (28,155 ha) across the 3.4 M ha credited area: forest cover increased by 3.6% (124,852 ha); and sparse woody cover decreased by −2.8% (96,697 ha) (Supplementary Fig.  5 ). By comparison, gains and losses in sparse woody cover alone across Australia averaged 2.2 M ha year −1 and −2.1 M ha year −1 respectively over the period 2013–14 to 2020–21 39 .

The modest gain in woody cover in the credited areas after project registration continued a trend that started in the late 2000s, before the HIR method was developed (Fig.  3 ). The increase in woody cover in the credited areas that pre-dates the method is difficult to reconcile with the premise of the projects: that grazing was previously suppressing regeneration and that, without the projects, it would not occur (Fig.  1 ).

Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release) (2023); Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023). The green bar shows when most (75%) of the HIR projects in the sample were registered (2015–2017).

There is a relationship between biomass in forest regeneration (above- and below-ground live biomass, litter, and dead wood) and crown cover in the forest systems where HIR projects are located 67 . This relationship suggests that forest cover (>20% crown cover) should be achieved when tree and debris biomass reaches 7.2 to 11 tonnes of dry matter per hectare, equivalent to 13.2–20.2 tCO 2 ha −1   67 . To 30 June 2022, estimated average credited sequestration in the 182 projects in the sample was 12.9 tCO 2 ha −1 (median 11.5 tCO 2 ha −1 , sd 8.9 tCO 2 ha −1 ) 31 . The estimated credited sequestration in 75 of these projects (41%) was ≥13.2 tCO 2 ha −1 (mean 21.6 tCO 2 ha −1 , median 20.8 tCO 2 ha −1 , sd 6.5 tCO 2 ha −1 ) 31 . This suggests that, based on the credits that have been issued, a substantial proportion of the total credited area should have already attained forest cover. However, for the 75 projects with credited sequestration ≥13.2 tCO 2 ha −1 , only 21% (188,880 ha) of the 898,680 ha total credited area had forest cover in 2022, and this was only a 1.8% (16,530 ha) increase relative to forest cover when the projects were registered (Fig.  4 , Supplementary Fig. S 6 ). There is a large apparent disparity between the credited and observed sequestration in the projects.

Note that under the HIR method, forest cover at project registration should be at or near 0% and reach 100% within ~10–15 years of when regeneration is modelled to have commenced. Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 − 2022 Release) (2023); Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023).

Change in woody cover relative to trends in external comparison areas

Changes in forest and sparse woody cover in credited areas were far more strongly correlated with changes in cover in comparison areas than to the timing of project registration. Table  2 presents standardised coefficients from hierarchical regression models predicting annual cover changes in credited areas as a function of cover changes in comparison areas and a variable indicating whether the year of observation was before or after project registration. The coefficients for comparison areas are many times larger than those for project registration. Project registration did have a statistically significant effect for forest cover change, but not for woody cover change. While statistically significant, the identified effect of project registration on forest cover was small, being equivalent to ~0.5% per year following project registration.

The extent to which changes in forest and sparse woody cover within credited areas have mirrored changes in comparison areas suggests the limited changes observed within the credited areas are largely non-additional. As shown in Figs.  3 , 5 (Supplementary Table  S1 , Fig. S 7 ), there was a strong correlation between forest and sparse woody cover changes in the credited areas and comparison areas over the period before projects were first registered. Post registration, the correlation was maintained, suggesting factors other than the project activities (most likely rainfall variability) have been the dominant influence on woody cover changes.

Dashed lines indicate 1:1. Source: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 − 2022 Release) (2023); Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra (2023).

It is important to note that, while changes in forest and sparse woody cover relative to external comparison areas provide a useful indicator of the impact of project activities, they should not be construed as the only indicator of project effectiveness. HIR projects are credited on the basis that even-aged native forest is regenerating across the entirety of the credited area and that, within ~10–15 years of when regeneration is modelled to have commenced, all of the credited area will have forest cover. The modest gain in woody cover observed within credited areas, and small effect of project registration on forest cover change, suggest this is unlikely to occur.

Reforestation, avoided forest conversion and improved forest management have the potential to generate substantial amounts of low-cost abatement, while providing important biodiversity and other co-benefits 68 , 69 . Carbon offset schemes can incentivise these activities and reduce the economic cost of decarbonisation. However, the benefits of these nature-based offsets are contingent on offset projects being credited only for real, additional and permanent increases in relevant carbon stocks. Our findings suggest that HIR projects in Australia’s uncleared rangelands do not meet this requirement.

There was only a small positive overall increase in forest cover (3.6%), and negligible increase in combined sparse woody and forest cover (0.8%), across the combined 3.4 Mha credited area, where the 182 assessed projects are supposedly regenerating permanent even-aged native forests. Despite the absence of material increases in woody cover, the projects received 27.4 million credits over the study period 31 ; 22.9 million credits were issued to projects whose woody cover declined or was largely stagnant.

Given the levels of credited sequestration, the changes in woody cover should be readily apparent, beyond the levels of classification error in the underlying data, which is likely to be in the order of 5–10% 39 , 64 . A substantial proportion of the credited areas should have already attained forest cover and, at the very least, there should have been large increases in sparse woody cover that go well beyond changes observed in the external comparison areas. Neither has occurred.

Trends in forest and woody cover in the credited areas largely mirrored fluctuations in comparison areas, both before and after project registration. Regression models of changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas identified far smaller effects for project registration than for cover changes in comparison areas. The results suggest the changes in forest and woody cover in the credited areas were largely non-additional, presumably because they reflect rainfall variability rather than responses to project activities 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 .

The small increases in forest and woody cover, and the small effect of project registration relative to variation in cover in the comparison areas, suggest HIR projects have done little to help Australia meet its international mitigation obligations, both in absolute terms and relative to credit issuances 39 . The underperformance is accentuated by the fact that, to date, the Australian Government alone has spent ~AU$300 million in purchasing credits from HIR projects and is contractually committed to purchase a further ~AU$1.2 billion 70 , 71 .

The results add to the growing literature highlighting the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional, and potentially impermanent 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 . They also serve as a reminder of why offsets are considered a high-risk policy instrument 10 , 72 , 73 .

Offsets are high-risk because of two factors: likelihood of error and the consequences when they occur. There is a high probability of error in the design and administration of the rules and processes that are intended to ensure credits are issued only for real, additional and permanent abatement. This is due to multiple factors, including the uncertainties associated with determining counterfactual baselines (what would net emissions have been within the project boundaries in the absence of the incentive provided by the scheme?) and the errors inherent in the measurement of emissions and removals from often dispersed sources and sinks 72 , 74 , 75 . Other pertinent factors that contribute to the likelihood of errors include the difficulty in overcoming adverse selection when seeking to exclude non-additional projects 74 , 76 , and the persistent tension within offset schemes to lower the stringency of measurement protocols to reduce transaction costs and thereby promote participation 77 .

Regardless of the cause, where errors occur and result in the issuance of low integrity credits, their use can lead to worse climate outcomes. This is because offsets are a permission to pollute, issued on the premise that the offset project has abated one tonne of emissions. Hence, when the credited abatement is not real, additional and permanent, offsets can enable an increase in emissions from a polluter with no offsetting emission reduction elsewhere.

The high-risk nature of offsets is why they are deprioritised in the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ that is often used in biodiversity-related regulatory approval processes 78 ; they are supposed to be a last resort reserved for when all other viable avoidance and mitigation options have been exhausted. The risk also provides the basis for the principle that offsets credits should only be used where there is high confidence the credits are likely to represent real, additional and permanent abatement 11 , 29 , 72 , 73 .

The root cause of the integrity issues with HIR projects is that credited areas have been allowed to be located in areas where native vegetation has not previously been comprehensively cleared, where the capacity to permanently increase forest carbon stocks is generally likely to be small, and in semi-arid and arid rangeland areas where there is substantial natural variability, which makes it difficult to separate the impacts of project activities from rainfall-induced changes 11 . The integrity problems with HIR projects have been compounded by the use of a modelled approach to the estimation of sequestration and allowing the model to be used in circumstances it was not calibrated for (i.e. to estimate regeneration on sites that contain material amounts of pre-existing woody vegetation) 30 , 37 .

Despite the risks, and the evidence of their limitations, carbon offsets are seen as indispensable by many policymakers; as evidenced through the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.4 Mechanism, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation and other similar initiatives 8 , 79 . With the commitment to their continued use, the challenge for policymakers is to demonstrate that offset schemes can have integrity.

The experience with HIR projects provides two generalisable lessons. First, that sequestration-related offsets are inappropriate for use in situations where the relevant carbon stocks are likely to be at or near their maximum sustainable potentials and where natural variability in the stocks is materially larger than the likely effects of management change. Second, care needs to be taken where models are used to estimate carbon stocks to ensure they are applied appropriately and with due regard to the need for conservativism.

Australia’s experience with HIR projects also highlights the importance of transparency 11 , 80 . From January 2013 until June 2023, no data on the location of credited areas were published under the scheme, which shielded projects from scrutiny. At the time of writing, proponents were still not required to publish offset reports or audit reports, or information on how they have modelled sequestration. Proponents are also not required to undertake any direct measurements of biomass in HIR projects and, where biomass measurements are voluntarily undertaken, they are not required to be published. Effective offset schemes require constant scrutiny and critical assessment, including from third parties. This cannot be provided without the public release of all information that is necessary for the proper evaluation of the performance and integrity of offset projects 11 .

HIR projects included in sample

As at 10 December 2023, there were 469 registered HIR projects. Up until April 2023, it was unlawful for the Clean Energy Regulator to publish data on the location of credited areas. Following changes to the law in April 2023, the Regulator first published credited area location data for 223 HIR projects on 6 June 2023.

To be included in the sample for the analysis, projects had to have published credited area location data and at least 4 years of data in the NFSW time series post the year they were registered ( n  = 191). This was to ensure there was a valid basis for determining the response of woody vegetation to the project activities. In addition, projects were excluded from the sample if they were completely surrounded by other projects ( n  = 4). These projects were excluded because it was not possible to designate a valid comparison area in accordance with the method described below. A further five projects were removed because the spatial data on their credited areas were not useable.

Credited area location data

The Clean Energy Regulator publishes credited area data in vector format. To facilitate our analysis, the dataset was converted into raster format. Due to differences between the map projections of each dataset, credited area data were rasterised using 10-m resolution vs the 25-m of the NFSW dataset. This increase in resolution allowed for improving the accuracy of the masking operation around partially intercepted pixels. To perform this conversion we used the standard gdal_rasterize command from the GDAL library to generate a raster preserving the original projection of the vector dataset 81 .

Carbon credit issuances

Carbon credit issuance data were obtained from the ERF Project Register published by the Clean Energy Regulator 31 . The Register contains data on total issuances and total issuances by Australian financial year (1 July–30 June). Credit issuances were included in a calendar year only where they were issued prior to 30 June of the same year. This ensured conservative estimates of credit issuances for the purposes of making comparisons of project performance.

Relative size of HIR projects

The relative size of HIR projects was analysed using data from the registries of seven offset schemes for the period 2013–2023: the ACCU scheme; Clean Development Mechanism; Verified Carbon Standard (VCS, or Verra); Gold Standard; American Carbon Registry; Climate Action Reserve; and Plan Vivo. Data on credit issuances by project type are provided in Supplementary Fig. S 1 .

External comparison areas

HIR projects have an outer project boundary, which is typically the boundary of the property on which it is located. The credited areas lie within the project boundary. The comparison areas, which are used as paired controls for each project, comprised 3 km wide buffer areas around the outside of project boundaries, excluding areas that intersected with other HIR projects.

The use of these 3 km wide comparison areas is likely to overstate the relative effects of the projects on woody cover. This is due to the way the credited areas are delineated. Under the HIR method, credited areas must contain only areas that have the potential to achieve forest cover (woody vegetation ≥2 m tall with crown cover >20% at 0.2 ha scale). They are also not allowed to have forest cover at commencement. This results in credited areas having exclusions inside and around them, even when the areas are subject to the same project activities (i.e. grazing control) and lie within the same fenced areas. In contrast, the comparison areas are comprised of all land within the 3 km wide buffers, excluding other HIR projects.

The characteristics of the credited areas and comparison areas means that, where the same changes in tree cover occur, there is likely to be a greater proportionate increase (or decrease) in cover in the credited areas relative to the comparison areas. This approach was adopted to ensure conservative outputs and because of the practical difficulty associated with delineating areas that share the same characteristics as the areas included in the credited areas.

National forest and sparse woody dataset analysis

Changes in woody cover (forest and sparse woody cover) in the credited areas and comparison areas were analysed using the Australian Government’s NFSW dataset (Version 7.0) 63 . The dataset provides Landsat-derived estimates of the extents of three classes of woody vegetation cover across Australia over the period 1988–2022. The data are a near-annual time series in which 25 m grid cells are classified as either non-woody, sparse woody (sub-forest woody cover where crown cover is between 5–19%) or forest (woody vegetation ≥2 m tall with crown cover >20% over at least 0.2 ha).

The analysis was undertaken using Terrak.io, a geospatial analytics platform developed by Haizea Analytics. This platform builds upon Cloud infrastructure and can provide on-demand analytics on large satellite and climate datasets through an API. Users can rely on Terrak.io to generate maps or zonal statistics showing temporal trends for large numbers or areas, defined using custom vector polygons. This infrastructure was used to calculate zonal statistics on the frequency of forest, sparse woody, and non-woody cover pixels within each project’s credited areas and comparison areas.

Classifying project changes in forest and sparse woody cover since registration

To assess whether woody cover in the credited areas of each project (i.e. the proportion of pixels with forest or sparse woody cover) experienced negative, negligible and positive change since the projects were registered (i.e. the results presented in Table  1 ), simple linear regression models were fit for each project to the time-series of the forest and sparse woody percentages in their credited areas from the year of registration forward, with the percentage of each cover class as the response variable and year as the only independent variable.

Projects were classified as having increased woody cover if the slope of either of the fits for forest or sparse cover was greater than 0.25% per year, provided the slope for the fit to the other woody cover class (i.e. sparse if the forest fit has a positive slope >0.25%) was greater than −0.05% per year.

Tree cover was deemed to be negligible if the sum of the slopes from the linear models fit to the sparse and forest cover were greater than −0.25% per year, and they did not meet the ‘increased’ requirements.

Projects whose tree cover did not meet either the ‘increased’ or ‘negligible’ requirements were deemed to have decreasing cover.

Comparing cover trends in carbon estimation areas and adjacent comparison areas

Changes in woody cover were calculated from the time-series of NFSW data from 1988 to 2022 63 . The percentage of pixels within the credited areas and comparison area classified as forest in each year was subtracted from the percentage of forest pixels in the preceding time point in the time series. Most time steps were annual, including all from 2004 on, but some spanned two or more years (’89–’91, ’92–’95, ’95–’98, ’98–2000, 2000–’02 and ’02–’04).

Hierarchical linear regression models, built using the lme4 package 82 in R (4.3.0, R Core Team 2022) 83 , were used to model cover changes within credited areas as a function of cover changes in comparison areas (indicating responses to broader environmental drivers) and a binary variable indicating whether the interval over which cover changes occurred was before or after the year of project registration. Models were built to include random effects accommodating the numerous observations made for each project by fitting separate intercepts for projects, as well as coefficients for the two fixed-effects (cover change in comparison areas and project registration) and a higher level intercept (Eq. ( 1 ), in the syntax of lmer: project_cover_change ~ comparison_area_change + registration + (1|project_ID)). Statistical significance of predictors was assessed via the anova function, by comparing the full model to models with each predictor removed in turn.

The cover change variables for credited areas (response) and comparison areas (fixed effect 1) were standardised (centred and scaled) by subtracting the variable mean from each observation, and dividing by its standard deviation (Supplementary Table  S2 ). The binary variable for project registration was not standardised (pre-registration = 0, post-registration = 1). This means that the coefficient for the comparison area predictor in each model is a measure of effect size, indicating the expected magnitude of change in the response credited area cover variable (in standard deviations) for a one standard deviation change in comparison area cover. The coefficient for project registration ( β 2 ) indicates the effect of project registration on year-to-year cover change in credited areas, again in units of standard deviation for the response variable, i.e. cover change in credited areas.

The strength of portfolio-scale correlations between the extent of each cover class (forest, sparse or woody) in the combined credited areas and in comparison areas, across the 182 projects (i.e. variables plotted in Fig.  3 ), was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient from the cor.test function in R 83 . Correlation coefficients were also calculated for annual cover changes inside credited areas and in adjacent comparison areas, for both forest and woody cover classes (Supplementary Table  S1 ).

Estimating credited sequestration

Credited sequestration was estimated using data from the ERF Project Register 31 . Total credit issuances to each project to 30 June 2022 were adjusted to account for relevant discounts (5% risk of reversal buffer and a 20% permanence period discount for projects with 25 year permanence periods). A uniform and conservative 0.5% deduction was made to account for fossil fuel use, based on Australian Government analysis of a sample of HIR projects that found average fuel use emissions were less than 0.02% of total project abatement 84 . The resulting estimates were converted from CO 2 to C using the atomic mass ratio, 44/12.

The approach used to compare credited sequestration to forest cover is conservative. Ideally, the comparison of forest cover to sequestration would be undertaken using the modelled sequestration for each project. This would ensure the estimates account for the fact that projects have been allowed to commence modelling regeneration before the projects were registered. Due to this, the amount of modelled sequestration across the projects is greater than the credited sequestration, accentuating the extent of relative underperformance. It was not possible to analyse the modelled sequestration because of transparency issues. Estimates of modelled sequestration are not published and no verified data are published on the modelling parameters used in HIR projects. At the time of writing, information about the choice of model calibration and modelling commencement dates had been published by the proponents of 63 HIR projects. However, the published data were incomplete (e.g. modelling points are not published) and unverified, rendering them unusable for these purposes.

Australian Government expenditure on carbon credits from HIR projects

We estimate that, to 4 December 2023, the Australian Government had spent ~AU$300 million in purchasing credits from HIR projects and was contractually committed to purchase a further ~AU$1.2 billion. The Australian Government does not publish data on carbon credit purchases or contracted credit prices by project. Due to this, our estimate of Australian Government expenditure on credits from HIR projects was based on the number of credits sold by each project to the Australian Government under Emissions Reduction Fund contracts, up until 4 December 2023 70 . Where contracts had multiple projects, the recorded credit sales were assumed to be sourced evenly from the contracted projects. Sale prices were assigned to each project based on the published weighted average carbon credit purchase price from the Emissions Reduction Fund auction at which the relevant project was contracted (range AU$10.23-AU$17.35) 71 . The estimate of the value of the remaining HIR credits contracted by the Australian Government was based on the number of credits originally contracted, less those delivered and the number of credits released or lapsed from delivery obligations 70 . The contracted prices assigned to each project were again based on the weighted average carbon credit purchase price from the Emissions Reduction Fund auction at which the relevant project was contracted 70 , 71 .

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study, including a summary of individual project data, are available on Figshare at: https://figshare.com/ [DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.25199786 and 10.6084/m9.figshare.25199789].

Code availability

Details of the hierarchical linear regression models developed in the study are provided above.

Schneider, L. & La Hoz Theuer, S. Environmental integrity of international carbon market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy 19 , 386–400 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Black, R. et al. Taking stock: A global assessment of net zero targets. (Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit and Oxford Net Zero,United Kingdom, 2021).

Dawes, A. et al. Voluntary Carbon Markets: A Review of Global Initiatives and Evolving Models . (Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, 2023).

Bushnell, J. The Economics of Carbon Offsets. in The Design and Implementation of U.S. Climate Policy (eds Don Fullerton and Catherine Wolfram) 197–209 (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Kopp, R. Role of Offsets in Global and Domestic Climate Policy. In Proc. National Research Council, Modelling the Economics of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Summary of a Workshop 92–99 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011).

Tavoni, M. et al. Forestry and the carbon market response to stabilize climate. Energy Policy 35 , 5346–5353 (2007).

Breidenich, C., Magraw, D., Rowley, A. & Rubin, J.W. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Am. J. Int. Law 92 , 315–331 (1998).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties. Adoption of the Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 37 (2016).

Stubbs, M. et al. Agriculture and Forestry Offsets in Carbon Markets: Background and Selected Issues . (Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 2021).

Goodward, J., Kelly, A. The Bottom Line on Offsets. (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2010).

Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. Core Carbon Principles . (ICVCM, London, 2023).

Marland, G. et al. Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ. Sci. Policy 4 , 259–268 (2001).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kollmuss, A. et al. Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms . (Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 2015).

Calel, R. et al. Do Carbon Offsets Offset Carbon ? (Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic Research, Munich, 2021).

Cames, M. et al. How additional is the Clean Development Mechanism? Analysis of the application of current tools and proposed alternatives . (INFRAS and Stockholm Environment Institute, Zürich, 2016).

Passey, R. et al. The governance challenge for implementing effective market-based climate policies: a case study of The New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme. Energy Policy 36 , 3009–3018 (2008).

Schneider, L. & Kollmuss, A. Perverse effects of carbon markets on HFC-23 and SF 6 abatement projects in Russia. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 1061–1064 (2015).

Randazzo, R. et al. Improved assessment of baseline and additionality for forest carbon crediting. Ecol. Appl. 33 , e2817 (2023).

Guizar-Coutiño, A. et al. A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conserv. Biol. 36 , e13970 (2022).

Badgley, G. et al. California’s forest carbon offsets buffer pool is severely undercapitalized. Front. For. Glob. Change 5 , 930426 (2022).

Badgley, G. et al. Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Glob. Change Biol. 28 , 1433–1445 (2022).

Coffield, S. et al. Using remote sensing to quantify the additional climate benefits of California forest carbon offset projects. Glob. Change Biol . 28 , 6789–6806 (2022).

West, T. A. P. et al. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 117 , 24188–24194 (2020).

West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381 , 873–877 (2023).

Stapp, J. et al. Little evidence of management change in California’s forest offset program. Commun. Earth. Environ. 4 , 331 (2023).

Gibbons, P. et al. Outcomes from 10 years of biodiversity offsetting. Glob. Change Biol. 24 , e643–e654 (2018).

zu Ermgassen, S. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12 , e12664 (2019).

NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. NSW Greenhouse Reduction Scheme—Strengths, Weaknesses and Lessons Learned (IPART, Sydney, 2013).

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cwlth).

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Human-Induced Regeneration of a Permanent Even-Aged Native Forest—1.1) Methodology Determination (2013).

Clean Energy Regulator. Emissions Reduction Fund project register . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Evans, M. C. et al. Carbon farming via assisted natural regeneration as a cost-effective mechanism for restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 50 , 114–129 (2015).

Evans, M. C. Effective incentives for reforestation: lessons from Australia’s carbon farming policies. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32 , 38–45 (2018).

Richards, G. & Evens, D. Development of a carbon accounting model (FullCAM Vers. 1.0) for the Australian continent. Aust. For. 67 , 277–283 (2004).

Waterworth, R. et al. A generalised hybrid process-empirical model for predicting plantation forest growth. Forest Ecol. Manag. 238 , 231–243 (2007).

Paul, K. et al. Improved models for estimating temporal changes in carbon sequestration in above-ground biomass of mixed-species environmental plantings. Forest Ecol. Manag. 338 , 208–218 (2015).

Paul, K. & Roxburgh, S. Predicting carbon sequestration of woody biomass following land restoration. Forest Ecol. Manag. 460 , 117838 (2020).

Roxburgh, S. et al. A revised above-ground maximum biomass layer for the Australian continent. Forest Ecol. Manag. 432 , 264–275 (2019).

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Inventory Report 2021 . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Butler, D. et al. Australian National University (ANU)-University of New South Wales (UNSW) ERF research team submission to the Chubb Review. (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, 2022).

Wilson, R. et al. Why offsets are not a viable alternative to cutting emissions. (Climate Analytics, Berlin, 2023).

Australian Academy of Science. Review of Four Methods of Generating Australian Carbon Credit Units . (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 2022).

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Submission to the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units . (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, 2022).

Richards, G. & Brack, C. A continental biomass stock and stock change estimation approach for Australia. Aust. For. 67 , 284–288 (2004).

Morton, S. R. et al. A fresh framework for the ecology of arid Australia. J. Arid Environ. 75 , 313–329 (2011).

Fensham, R. J. et al. How does clay constrain woody biomass in drylands? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24 , 950–958 (2015).

Ma, X. et al. Drought rapidly diminishes the large net CO 2 uptake in 2011 over semi-arid Australia. Sci. Rep. 6 , 37747 (2016).

Fensham et al. Rainfall, landuse and woody vegetation cover in semi-arid Australian savannah. J. Ecol. 93 , 596–606 (2005).

Eldridge, D. J. et al. Impacts of shrub encroachment on ecosystem structure and functioning: towards a global synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 14 , 709–722 (2011).

Sankaran, M. et al. Native ungulates of diverse body sizes collectively regulate long-term woody plant demography and structure of a semi-arid savanna. J. Ecol. 101 , 1389–1399 (2013).

Travers, S. et al. Rabbits and livestock grazing alter the structure and composition of mid-storey plants in a wooded dryland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 277 , 53–60 (2019).

Witt, G. B. Vegetation changes through the eyes of the locals: the ‘artificial wilderness’ in the mulga country of south-west Queensland. Rangel. J. 35 , 299–314 (2013).

Fensham, R. et al. Potential aboveground biomass in drought-prone forest used for rangeland pastoralism. Ecol. Appl. 22 , 894–908 (2012).

Landsberg, J. et al. Abundance and composition of plant species along grazing gradients in Australian rangelands. J. Appl. Ecol. 40 , 1008–1024 (2003).

Friedel, M. H. Discontinuous change in arid woodland and grassland vegetation along gradients of cattle grazing in central Australia. J. Arid Environ. 37 , 145–164 (1997).

Noble, J. C. T he Delicate and Noxious Scrub: CSIRO Studies on Native Tree and Shrub Proliferation in the Semi-Arid Woodlands of Eastern Australia . (CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 1997).

Burrows, W. H. Seeing the wood(land) for the trees—an individual perspective of Queensland woodland studies (1965-2005). Trop. Grasslands 36 , 202–217 (2002).

Google Scholar  

Fensham, R. & Fairfax, R. Preliminary assessment of gidgee (Acacia cambagei) woodland thickening in the Longreach district, Queensland. The Rangel. J. 27 , 159–168 (2005).

Witt, B. et al. Is ‘vegetation thickening’ occurring in Queensland’s mulga lands—a 50-year aerial photographic analysis. Aust. J. Bot. 57 , 572–582 (2009).

Queensland Department of Environment and Science. Statewide Landcover and Trees Study: 2020–21 SLATS Report. (Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2023).

NSW Department of Planning and Environment. Results for NSW Vegetation Clearing 2021 . (NSW Government, Sydney, 2023).

Fensham, R. et al. To what extent is drought‐induced tree mortality a natural phenomenon? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28 , 365–373 (2019).

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. National Forest and Sparse Woody Vegetation Data (Version 7.0 - 2022 Release) (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Department of the Environment and Energy. National Inventory Report 2017 . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2019).

Macintosh, A. et al. HIR Project Data Summary. Figshare (2024). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25199786 .

Macintosh, A. et al. Forest & Sparse Woody Cover in HIR Projects. Figshare (2024). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25199789 .

Larmour, J. et al. Relating canopy cover and average height to the biomass of the stand. Report for the Department of the Environment and Energy . (CSIRO, Canberra, 2019).

Austin, K. et al. The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nat. Commun. 11 , 5946 (2020).

Nabuurs, G-J. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Shukla P. R. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA 2022).

Clean Energy Regulator. Carbon abatement contract register . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Clean Energy Regulator. Auction results . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2023).

Gillenwater, M., Seres, S. The Clean Development Mechanism: A Review of the First International Offset Program . (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC, 2011).

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP). Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, Decision 3/CMP.1, paragraph 45 (2005).

Bushnell, J. Adverse Selection and Emissions Offsets . Energy Institute at HAAS. Working Paper 222. (University of California, Berkeley, 2011).

Smith, P. et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 219–241 (2020).

Burke, P. J. Undermined by adverse selection: Australia’s direct action abatement subsidies. Econ. Papers 35 , 216–229 (2016).

Victor, D. The Politics and Economics of International Carbon Offsets. In Proc. National Research Council, Modelling the Economics of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Summary of a Workshop 132–142 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, (2011).

Arlidge, W. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68 , 336–347 (2018).

International Civil Aviation Organization. Assembly Resolution A41-22: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection—Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). (ICAO, Montreal, Canada, 2022).

Gupta, A. & Mason, M. Disclosing or obscuring? the politics of transparency in climate governance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 18 , 82–90 (2016).

GDAL/OGR contributors. GDAL/OGR Geospatial Data Abstraction software Library. Open Source Geospatial Foundation (2022). URL https://gdal.org . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5884351 .

Bates, D. et al. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67 , 1–48 (2015).

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2022).

Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. Review of the Human-Induced Regeneration and Native Forest from Managed Regrowth methods . (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Andrew Macintosh, Don Butler, Dean Ansell, Marie Waschka, David Lindenmayer, Philip Gibbons & Paul Summerfield

Haizea Analytics Pty Ltd, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Pablo Larraondo

University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Megan C. Evans

University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Rod Fensham

University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

David Eldridge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.M., D.B., P.L. and M.E. initiated and designed the research, with input from D.A. and M.W. A.M. led the drafting, with input from all authors, except P.S. D.B. designed and performed the statistical analysis. P.L. processed and analysed the woody cover data. A.M. compiled and analysed data on projects and crediting. R.F., D.E., D.L. and P.G. provided input on drafting and the literature review. P.S. designed and illustrated Fig.  1 .

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Andrew Macintosh or Don Butler .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare the following competing interests. A.M. is a non-executive director of Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd. Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd has offset projects under Australia’s offset scheme. Paraway Pastoral Company Ltd does not have any human-induced regeneration projects. A.M., D.B., D.A. and M.W. advise public and private entities on environmental markets and Australia’s carbon offset scheme, including on the design of carbon offset methods. The remaining authors have no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Earth & Environment thanks Thales A. P. West, Michael Köhl and Shane Coffield for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Jinfeng Chang and Martina Grecequet. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Macintosh, A., Butler, D., Larraondo, P. et al. Australian human-induced native forest regeneration carbon offset projects have limited impact on changes in woody vegetation cover and carbon removals. Commun Earth Environ 5 , 149 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01313-x

Download citation

Received : 22 September 2023

Accepted : 11 March 2024

Published : 26 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01313-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Funding Opportunity: DOD CDMRP Releases FY 2024 Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program Solicitations

Lewis-Burke Associates has provided campus with a  report  about the Department of Defense (DOD) Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) FY24 Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP) solicitations.  For FY 2024, Congress has allocated $370 million for PRMRP in over forty topic areas.  The PRMRP aims to support medical research projects of clear scientific merit that lead to clear and impactful advances in the health care of service members, veterans, and beneficiaries. Those interested should carefully review the submission requirements for each funding mechanism and the “Strategic Goals” of each FY 2024 PRMRP topic area in each solicitation. 

• Undergraduate Students
• Doctoral Students
• Master’s Students
• Engineering Master’s Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Families
• Asian / Pacific Islander
• Black/African American
• First Generation/Low Income
• Hispanic/Latinx
• International
• Native American/Indigenous
• Neurodiverse
• Student Athletes
• Students with Disabilities
• Undocumented
• What is a Career Community?
• Business, Finance & Consulting
• Data, Technology & Engineering
• Discovery & Exploration
• Education, Government, Nonprofit & Policy
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Entertainment, Media & Arts
• Healthcare & Biomedical Sciences
• Innovation, Entrepreneurship & Design
• Know Yourself
• Explore Options
• Focus & Prepare
• Take Action
• Evaluate & Refine
• Featured Opportunities
• Career Readiness Resources
• Personalize Your Hub
• For Employers

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Summer intern 2024 – peer review.

• Share This: Share Summer Intern 2024 – Peer Review on Facebook Share Summer Intern 2024 – Peer Review on LinkedIn Share Summer Intern 2024 – Peer Review on X

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is an independent nonprofit organization authorized by Congress in 2010. Its mission is to fund research that will provide patients, their caregivers and clinicians with the evidence-based information needed to make better-informed healthcare decisions. PCORI is committed to continually seeking input from a broad range of stakeholders to guide its work.

Position Summary

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is offering a Summer Internship to a qualified candidate who will support the Peer Review team. This paid internship is a full time, temporary employment opportunity averaging 40 hours per week for a postgraduate student. PCORI does not provide housing for out-of-town residents. All applicants must be eligible to work in the US and located in the US. Interested parties may apply for internships in multiple departments; please include a specific cover letter for each position.

Pay Range and Employment Status:

Interns shall be classified as temporary employees who are hired as interim replacements, to temporarily supplement the workforce, or to assist in the completion of a specific project and who are temporarily scheduled to work for a limited duration. Employment beyond any initially stated period does not in any way imply a change in employment status. Temporary workers are not eligible for PCORI benefits.

Current master’s level and above students will be paid $20.00 per hour.

The Peer Review department is seeking an intern who will have the opportunity to:

• Participate in a project that will help PCORI in the analysis of stages in the peer review process that may cause delays in the movement of reports through peer review.
• Gain exposure to the scientific peer review and publication process as well as elements of research study preparation.
• Build skills in data collection, organization, and analysis of finding

Incumbent(s) in this position may be required to perform other duties and special assignments not specifically stated above.

Statements outlined in this section are designated as essential job functions in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Required Skills

The Peer Review team is seeking an intern that will meet the following requirements:

• Strong background in research methods,
• Experience reviewing and writing about medical research
• Strong interest in public health administration or editorial management

Required Experience

Ideal candidates will be pursuing their postgraduate education in Research Methods, Health Communication, Public Health, or Data Analysis.

Application Process:

Applications for the PCORI Summer Internship Program will be accepted up to 12:00pm EST on Friday, April 12th, 2024. Applicants who are chosen will be phone screened by PCORI People Strategy and Services. Virtual interviews with relevant intern supervisors will take place from April 22nd – April 27th.

Internship Application Submission Deadline – April 12th, 2024

Summer Internship Start Date – June 3rd, 2024

Summer Internship End Date – August 9th, 2024

Application Instructions:

PCORI will only consider complete applications that include:

• A cover letter
• An up-to-date resume

PCORI conducts background checks on all applicants.

PCORI’s Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

PCORI is an equal opportunity employer committed to diversity both internal and external to the workplace. You can learn more about our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion here . All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, genetics, disability, age, veteran status, or any other basis protected by law.