Peer Review Process; how similar does one's background have to be for one to have input on the study?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

So I've tried listening to various YouTube summaries of the peer review process, but thus far one thing they have in common is that while they all point out that the peer review process involves scrutiny from people in "related" fields, they don't specify how related is "related."

 

If for instance, your paper were on particle physics, would the peer review process include scrutiny from people specialized in other branches of physics? What about from other physical sciences, like chemists or geologists? What about people from non-physical sciences, like psychologists or sociologists? And what about people from the humanities?

 

Likewise, if your paper were interdisciplinary between, let's say, biochemistry and behavioural neuroscience, would it be subject to scrutiny from biochemists and behavioural neuroscience, or other branches of biology, chemistry, or neuroscience? (On top of the questions in the above paragraph.)

[swansont]

In my own experience it’s a closely-related field. Such people have familiarity with the techniques and procedures of the experiments, and with any theory being discussed. Reviewers generally volunteer their time; it’s not reasonable to expect them to get up to speed in an area not in their wheelhouse in order to do peer review.

3 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Likewise, if your paper were interdisciplinary between, let's say, biochemistry and behavioural neuroscience

You probably wouldn’t be the only one doing such interdisciplinary work. But it’s possible you could have reviewers from both disciplines, each looking at their own area of expertise

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Again that leaves the question of how closely is closely... would it be physicists scrutinizing physicists, or something more specific like particle physics vs. fluid dynamics as separate fields?

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Again that leaves the question of how closely is closely... would it be physicists scrutinizing physicists, or something more specific like particle physics vs. fluid dynamics as separate fields?

It’s people who have published in the same research area - the same subdivision of a journal or conference catering to an area of science.

e.g. when I submitted a paper on laser cooling and trapping, AFAIK it was reviewed by others doing laser cooling and trapping. This is an area within atomic and optical physics.

Journals and conferences often provide sorting categories or topics. In my experience, reviewers would be publishing in the same category.

e.g. in optical physics  https://opg.optica.org/josab/home.cfm topics include

Fiber Optics 

Instrumentation, Measurement, and Metrology 

Light Sources and Amplifiers 

Light-induced Phenomena 

Metamaterials 

Nonlinear or High Field Optics 

Optical Materials 

Optics Modes, Structured Light, and Beam Shaping 

Photonics

Physical Optics

Quantum Optics 

Surface Optics 

Ultrafast Optics 

 

 

[Arete]

I am an associate editor for two journals in my field, and facilitate the peer review of a couple of papers per month. 

Generally, a prospective reviewer needs to have an active publication record in the field - which generally dictates they have a relevant PhD (though not always, sometimes grad students can review) and some kind of academic position. 

Generally, I would expect a reviewer for a virology paper to have worked/published on viruses, a reviewer for a bacteriology paper to have worked/published on bacteria, and also be familiar with the methodology e.g. I wouldn't send a genomics/bioinformatics paper to and old school physiologist and vice versa. 

Also, we always solicit the names of prospective reviewers from the authors of the paper themselves, although who I actually send it to is at my discretion. I usually have to solicit 6-12 reviewers to end up with 2 reviews. 

 

[CharonY]

Specifically for interdisciplinary papers I often try to find a reviewer with background on methodological side of things to makes sure that the approach is sound and ideally someone in field from for which conclusions are drawn. That is not always possible as you often have to go through a lot of potential reviewers before you find someone who agrees to review it, as Arete already mentioned.