In this issue of ABO (Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia) we formally acknowledge and
express our gratitude to the voluntary hard and substantial work, commitment and proficiency
of our peer reviewers. We could not thank them enough for their immense cooperation to our
journal and, why not, visual sciences. That said, we could state that the essential
impartiality and quality of scientific publishing is provided by peer
reviewers(
11 Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve
the system. BMC Med. 2014;26;12(1):179.
2 Kadar N. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn. Am
J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):596-601.
3 Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J
Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(1):9-12.
4 Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer
review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-6.
5 Székely T, Krüger O, Krause ET. Errors in science: the role of reviewers.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29(7):371-3.
6 Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, et al. Impact
of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals:
retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.
-
77 Gasparyan AY. Peer review in scholarly biomedical journals: a few things
that make a big difference. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28(7):970-1.
).
Peer review is defined as the "critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff" by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Journal’s editors may not have accurate expertise to provide complete and impartial reviews of all themes considered for publication. Reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge about a subject or subspecialty. Peer review aims to improve science writing and editing, and medical publications deeply rely on its quality. They help editors to decide whether to publish a manuscript and provide critical feedback aiming to raise the quality of the manuscript’s final version. Considering that a reviewer delay can potentially affect the career of younger colleagues, who are relying on a publication for promotion or tenure, reviewers work carries a "great power" and is associated to a huge responsibility( 88 Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53(4):386-9. , 99 Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):958-64. ).
Properly conducted peer review offers a great chance to learn from others experience and improve quality and safety of health care with the best available scientific discoveries and proper analysis. Reviewers check for inconsistencies, biases, wrong methodology and frauds. Incorrect reviews may lead to erroneous editorial decisions and good science might be rejected for bad reasons (even manuscripts that later resulted in a Nobel Prize have been rejected for publication)( 99 Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):958-64. ). On the other hand, imprecise, misleading and partial data can be printed and negatively impact our patients. Clinical decisions are affected based in published results, having a direct impact on patient care( 1010 Moylan EC, Harold S, O'Neill C, Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014;15:55. , 1111 Kara-Junior N. Medicina baseada em evidências. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2014;73(1):5-6. ).
There are no "formal training" programs for peer reviewers. Hence, although universally used, peer review is time-consuming, imperfect, largely subjective, present low reproducibility even under optimal research conditions and may fail to notice important deficiencies. Why does it happen? First of all, we have to state that medicine is very complex, and few (if any) outcome have a single sufficient and necessary cause. Besides that, many methodological biases (e.g.: sample selection, data extraction and analysis, statistical analysis, etc…) may affect decision making and lead to error. Also the competitiveness in research ("publish or perish") and limited grant funding opportunities may induce one to publish results from a single study into multiple (redundant) publications, plagiarize, fabricate or fraud scientific information( 11 Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014;26;12(1):179. , 22 Kadar N. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):596-601. , 55 Székely T, Krüger O, Krause ET. Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29(7):371-3. , 77 Gasparyan AY. Peer review in scholarly biomedical journals: a few things that make a big difference. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28(7):970-1. ).
Reviewers are more likely to accept to evaluate a manuscript when the paper represents an opportunity to learn something new, its data is relevant and contribute to their area of expertise. A sense of professional duty, part of academic role and the reputation of the journal are also key factors. The most motivating incentives included free access to the journal, annual acknowledgement of reviewers published on the journal, feedback about the outcome of the manuscript submission and the quality of their reviews, and the appointment of the best reviewers to the journal’s editorial board. Lack of time is the major factor in the decision to decline. Others reasons include conflict of interests and a tight deadline to complete the review( 33 Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(1):9-12. ).
Receiving adequate peer review for manuscripts is really a great challenge, can affect quality and result in publication delay. Most skilled reviewers are those with a respectable track record of own publications in high-quality periodicals, expertise in epidemiology or statistics, current involvement in research, affiliation to a University hospital and several reviewer contributions( 88 Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53(4):386-9. ). It is not easy to find! The exponential growth of manuscripts submitted for publication overburdens the capability of available qualified referees and challenges the maintenance of quality on their evaluations and respect timelines( 77 Gasparyan AY. Peer review in scholarly biomedical journals: a few things that make a big difference. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28(7):970-1. ).
We have the privilege of counting with the contribution of world renowned specialists, who makes valuable revisions. We strongly support this formal recognition of their contribution and respectfully express our thankfulness for sharing your valuable time with ABO and its readers.
-
1Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014;26;12(1):179.
-
2Kadar N. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):596-601.
-
3Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(1):9-12.
-
4Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-6.
-
5Székely T, Krüger O, Krause ET. Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29(7):371-3.
-
6Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.
-
7Gasparyan AY. Peer review in scholarly biomedical journals: a few things that make a big difference. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28(7):970-1.
-
8Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53(4):386-9.
-
9Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):958-64.
-
10Moylan EC, Harold S, O'Neill C, Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014;15:55.
-
11Kara-Junior N. Medicina baseada em evidências. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2014;73(1):5-6.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
Jan-Feb 2015
History
-
Received
13 Dec 2014 -
Accepted
15 Dec 2014