査読の仕組み (と学術誌の確かめ方)

公式の定義

Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff.

実際に決めるのは誰か

A peer-reviewed journal is under no obligation to send submitted manuscripts for review, and under no obligation to follow reviewer recommendations, favorable or negative.

• PDF上の記事の種類を確認する。原著研究、系統的レビュー、方法論文であり、手紙、ニュース、招待論評ではないこと。
• 学術誌の "About"、"Instructions for authors"、または "Editorial policies" のページを開き、記載されている査読モデル（匿名、オープン、透明）を読む。
• その学術誌が何を判断しているかを問う。Nature は関心と前進をふるいにかけ、PLOS ONE は技術的な厳密さをふるいにかける。「査読済み」は同じ関門を意味しない。
• 生物医学系の誌名なら、現在 MEDLINE に収録されているかを確認する。MEDLINEは、査読過程が "explicit and sufficiently detailed" かを問う。
• 見覚えのないオープンアクセス誌なら、ホームページの「査読済み」バッジを信じず、Think. Check. Submit. の学術誌チェックリスト（英語本文は2023年6月最終更新）を使う。
• arXiv、bioRxiv、medRxiv、SSRN上のプレプリントを査読済みとして扱わない。ICMJE §III.D.3.aは、著者に対し、アーカイブが "Clearly identify preprints as work that is not peer reviewed." と明示するものを選ぶよう求めている。
• 論文が査読ファイルを公開しているなら、開く。Nature Portfolio は、2025年6月16日以降に投稿された原著研究とともに、そのファイルを公開するようになった。

号の中身を握るのは、なお編集者である

The editor of a journal is ultimately responsible for the selection of all its content, and editorial decisions may be informed by issues unrelated to the quality of a manuscript, such as suitability for the journal.

学術誌は過程を説明しなければならない

For this reason and as a service to authors, journals should publish a clear, transparent description of their peer-review process for all types of manuscripts.

最低限の査読

At least two independent reviewers must review each article, with an exception for arts & humanities journals (for which editorial review must be handled with a minimum of two editors).

パネルに座るのは誰か

The first level of review is carried out by a Scientific Review Group (SRG), also referred to as a study section, composed primarily of non-federal scientists who have expertise in relevant scientific disciplines and current research areas.

評点の尺度

The NIH utilizes a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor) in whole numbers (no decimals).

五つの別々の評点ではなく、三つの因子

The Simplified Framework for NIH Peer Review Criteria retains the five regulatory criteria (Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment) but reorganizes them into three factors — two receive numerical criterion scores and one is evaluated for sufficiency.

Factor 1 — Importance of the Research:

Significance と Innovation。1–9で評点する。

Factor 2 — Rigor and Feasibility:

Approach（該当する場合は包含と臨床試験の日程を含む）。1–9で評点する。

Factor 3 — Expertise and Resources:

Investigators と Environment。十分か不十分かを記す。欠けがあれば説明が要る。研究者の一般的な評判に対する別個の1–9評点はない。

社内での選別

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review.

査読者は何人か

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique).

• Accept, with or without editorial revisions
• Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
• Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

投票ではない

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation.

referee は何のためか

Peer review is designed to select technically valid research of significant interest. Referees are expected to identify flaws, suggest improvements and assess novelty.

referee が見られないもの

Journal editors do not expect peer review to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions. A peer reviewer can only evaluate what the authors chose to include in the manuscript.

学術誌情報

We evaluate research on the basis of scientific validity, strong methodology, and high ethical standards—not perceived significance.

査読者ガイドライン

Unlike many journals which attempt to use the peer review process to determine whether or not an article reaches the level of 'importance' required by a given journal, PLOS One uses peer review to determine whether a paper is technically rigorous and meets the scientific and ethical standard for inclusion in the published scientific record.

その形式

Registered Reports is a publishing format that emphasizes the importance of the research question and the quality of methodology by conducting peer review prior to data collection. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication if the authors follow through with the registered methodology.

学術誌の方針になければならないこと（COSの下限）:

査読は、結果を観察する前に行われる。Stage 1 を生き抜いた原稿は、原則採択を受ける。結果が期待外れだったから取り消されることはない——品質の失敗、プロトコルからの逸脱、解決できない報告上の問題だけが理由になる。

1953年の手紙（実際の書誌データ）:

Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. C. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171(4356), 737–738. https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0

この事例が教えること:

論文は基礎的でありながら、いまシラバスが求める過程を飛ばしていることがあります。「Nature に載った」は、それだけでは外部査読の証拠ではありません——1953年においても、今日の Nature Portfolio 誌のすべての欄においても。記事種と、その学術誌の現行方針を確認してください。

APA 7（出版確定版）:

Luebber, F., Krach, S., Paulus, F. M., Rademacher, L., & Rahal, R.-M. (2025). Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line. Nature Communications, 16, Article 9824. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65660-9

この論文が何か（誤って引用しないために）:

Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre の Freiraum 助成線についての実証報告です。助成配分実験についての学術誌査読です。それ自体は NIH の study-section 評点ではなく、公開された査読ファイルは助成の summary statement でもありません。

査読ファイルが見せないもの:

編集者への機密コメントと、編集者どうしの私的な議論。Nature Portfolio は、公開ファイルは過程への窓であり、決定記録の全体ではないと述べています。

Single anonymized

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far.

Double anonymized

Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model.

2025年6月16日の既定

For submissions received on or after 16th June 2025, this peer review file will be published alongside all our original research articles.

そのファイルが何か:

著者への査読者コメント、著者の反論書、場合によっては編集決定の通知を、補遺の査読ファイルとして掲げる。その日より前に投稿された原稿は、なおオプトアウトできた。

そのファイルが何かではないか:

決定の完全な逐語録ではない。別の Nature Portfolio 誌からの移管は、前の誌の報告を再公開しない。

見出し

Is the journal clear about the type of peer review it uses?

速さの試験

The journal doesn’t guarantee acceptance or a very short peer review time.

同じチェックリストの続きの問い:

ウェブサイトは、過程に独立した／外部の査読者が関わるか、論文あたり何人の査読者かを述べているか。出版社は、専門の編集委員会による審査か、あなたの主題領域の研究者による審査かを示しているか。

コンサルタントが見るもの

Is the peer review process explicit and sufficiently detailed, including information on the type of peer review and the number of reviewers typically assigned to a manuscript?

「predatory」または「pseudo-journals」がすること

These journals (“predatory” or “pseudo-journals”) accept and publish almost all submissions and charge article processing (or publication) fees, often informing authors about this after a paper’s acceptance for publication. They often claim to perform peer review but do not and may purposefully use names similar to well-established journals.

その限界

Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science.

Impact factor

The journal impact factor is widely misused as a proxy for research and journal quality and as a measure of the importance of specific research projects or the merits of individual researchers, including their suitability for hiring, promotion, tenure, prizes, or research funding.

ICMJE §II.C.3

Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review.

AI出力についてのICMJE

Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

ICMJE Section V（2026年1月）——機密

Editors, reviewers, or publishers should not upload submitted manuscript into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured without authors’ explicit permission.

Nature Portfolio、「AI use by peer reviewers」

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

DOAJ Guide to applying——AIによる評価

Peer reviewers and editors should not use generative AI to create their assessments, due to risks such as breaches of confidentiality, superficial and non-specific feedback, bias, hidden prompts, and false information such as fake references; editing and rewriting may be acceptable if disclosed.