Acessibilidade / Reportar erro
Editorial • Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 78 (1) • Jan-Feb 2015 • https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20150001   copy

Peer review

Avaliação por pares

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

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.

Thumbnail
REVIEWER FULL NAME Abrahão Lucena Emilio Dodds Adem Turk Emmerson Badaro Afsun Sahin Eneas Bezerra Gouveia Alexandre Ventura Enyr Saran Arcieri Alfredo Andrade Enzo Fulco Aline C. F. Lui Eric Andrade Alparslan Sahin Esin Sögütlü Sari Altan Goktas Evandro Lucena Amelia Fernandes Nunes Fabiana Valera Amelia Kamegasawa Fabiano Cade Ana Catarina Delgado Souza Fabio Casanova Ana Laura Moura Fabio Ejzenbaum Ana Luisa Lima-Farah Fabio Henrique Ferraz Ana Tereza Moreira Fabio Jose Mariotoni Bronzatto Andre Messias Fabio Kanadani Andre Romano Fabiola Murta Andrea Zin Fabricio Fonseca Andrew Eiseman Fausto Uno Antonio Augusto Velasco Cruz Fernando Chahud Antonio Macho Fernando Orefice Antonio Marcelo Casella Fernando Procianoy Aylin Kilig Fernando Trindade Ayrton Ramos Fernando Zanetti Bruna Lana Ducca Flavia Augusta Attie de Castro Bruna V Ventura Flavio Hirai Bruno Diniz Flavio Maccord Caio Regatieri Flavio Paranhos Cari Perez-Vives Flavio Rocha Carlos Arce Francisco Irochima Carlos Augusto Moreira Jr. Francisco Max Damico Carlos Eduardo Leite Arieta Frederico Guerra Carlos Roberto Neufeld Guilherme Castela Carolina Gracitelli Gustavo Amorim Novais Carolina Maria Modulo Gustavo Bonfadini Caroline Amaral Ferraz Gustavo Viani Arruda Celia Simoes Cardoso de Oliveira Sathler Gustavo Victor Celso Morita Harley E. A. Bicas Christiane Rolim de Moura Helio Angotti-Neto Cigdem Akdag Helio Shiroma Cintia de Paiva Heloisa Andrade Maestrini Clovis Arcoverde Freitas Heloisa Nascimento Dacio Costa Huseyin Bayramlar Daniel Cecchetti Ines Lains Daniel Lavinsky luuki Takasaka Daniel Meira-Freitas Jack Shao Daniel Vasconcellos Jackson Barreto Jr. Daniel Wasilewski Jair Giampani Junior Davi Araf Jarbas Castro David Guyton Jern Yee Chen David Smadja Jim Schwiegerling Denise Fornazari de Oliveira Joana Ferreira Dora Ventura Joao Antonio Prata Jr Eduardo Alonso Garcia Joao Borges Fortes Filho Eduardo Amorim Novais Joao Carlos Miranda Goncalves Eduardo Cunha Souza Joao Crispim Eduardo Dib Joao Luiz Lobo Ferreira Eduardo Franga Damasceno Joao Marcello Furtado Eduardo Marback Joao Marcelo Lyra Eduardo Rodrigues Joao Paulo Fernandes Felix Elcio H Sato Jonathan Lake Elisabeth Nogueira Martins Jorge Mitre Elizabeth Lin Jose Aparecido da Silva Jose Augusto Cardillo Moacyr Pezati Rigueiro Jose Beniz Monica Alves Jose Luiz Laus Monica Cronemberger Jose Paulo Vasconcellos Monica de Andrade Morraye Juliana Sallum Moyses Zajdenweber Katharina Messias Muhammet Kazim Erol Katia Bottos Murat Gunay Katia dos Santos Murilo Abud Keila Monteiro de Carvalho Myrna Santos Kenzo Hokazono Nelson Sabrosa Kimble Matos Newton Kara-Junior Larissa Coppini Osman Cekic Laurentino Biccas Pablo Chiaradia Leandro Cabral Zacharias Patricia Akaishi Leonardo Hueb Patricia Novita Leonardo Provetti Cunha Patrick Frensel Tzelikis Liang Shih Jung Paula Delegrego Borba Ligia Fendi Paula Yuri Sacai Liliane Andrade Almeida Kanecadan Paulo Fadel Lisa B. Arbisser Paulo Pierre Lisandro Sakata Paulo Schor Lucas Vianna Paulo Sergio de Moraes Barros Luciana Castro Lavigne Pedro Carricondo Luciano Simao Peter Mc Gannon Luciene Fernandes Peter Reinach Luis Brenner Philipp Albrecht Luis Eduardo Rebougas de Carvalho Priscila Novaes Luis Nominato Priscilla Ballalai Bordon Luiz Felipe Lynch Rafael Furlanetto Luiz Guilherme Freitas Ramon Coral Ghanem Luiz Hagemann Remzi Karadag Luiz Henrique Lima Renata Portella Luiz Teixeira Renato Damasceno Luiz Vieira Ricardo Paletta Guedes M Cristina Nishiwaki Dantas Ricardo Salles Cauduro Manuel Zegarra Ricardo Suzuki Marcella Salomão Richard Hida Marcelo Casella Robert Montes-Mico Marcelo da Costa Roberta Costa Marcelo F. Gaal Vadas Roberto Galvao-Filho Marcelo Hatanaka Roberto Marback Marcelo Jordao Silva Roberto Pinto Coelho Marcelo Palis Ventura Rodrigo Brant Fernandes Marcelo Silva Rodrigo Calado Marcia Beatriz Tartarella Rodrigo Espindola Marcia Motono Rodrigo Jorge Marcio Mendes Rony Carlos Preti Marco Bonini Rosane Ferreira Marcony Santhiago Rubens Neto Maria Antonia Saornil Rubens Siqueira Maria de Lourdes Motta Moreira Villas Boas Rui Schimiti Maria Emilia Xavier dos Santos Araujo Rupal Trivedi Maria Haddad Saban Gonul Maria Kiyoko Oyamada Sebastiao Cronemberger Maria Regina Chalita Sergio Burnier Mariluze Sardinha Sergio Kwitko Mario Junqueira Nóbrega Seydi Okumus Marlon Moraes Ibrahim Seyhan Dikci Marta Halfeld Ferrari Alves Lacordia Sheau Huang Martin Berra Sidney Faria e Sousa Mauricio Abujamra Nascimento Simone Haber Duellberg Von Faber Bison Mauricio Bastos Pereira Solange Salomão Mauricio Maia Somaia Mitne Mauro Silveira de Queiroz Campos Tammy H Osaki Mauro Waiswol Tiago Arantes Mirella Gualtieri Tiago Cavalcanti Tiago Santos Prata Virginia Laura Lucas Torres Tuba Celik Vital Costa Tuncay Kusbeci Walter Bloise Ugur Acar Wener Cella Vanessa Gerente Wesley Ribeiro Campos Vera Regina Cardoso Castanheira William Mieler Vinicius Ghanem Wilson Takashi Hida Viral Juthani Yasin Cinar Virgilio Centurion Zelia M Correa
  • 1
    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.
  • 7
    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.
  • 8
    Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53(4):386-9.
  • 9
    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.
  • 10
    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.
  • 11
    Kara-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
Creative Common - by-nc 3.0
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia Rua Casa do Ator, 1117 - cj.21, 04546-004 São Paulo SP Brazil, Tel: 55 11 - 3266-4000, Fax: 55 11- 3171-0953 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: abo@cbo.com.br
Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS