Leveron&Nexovas
briv
Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 2344  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
    Similar in PUBMED
    Article in PDF (831 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed929    
    Printed30    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded33    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents    
EDITORIAL
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 69  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1516-1517

Authors, Reviewers, and Publishers- The Ecosystem for Scientific Documentation: Is this Enough?


Department of Neurosurgery, AIIMS, New Delhi, India

Date of Submission13-Dec-2021
Date of Decision13-Dec-2021
Date of Acceptance13-Dec-2021
Date of Web Publication23-Dec-2021

Correspondence Address:
P Sarat Chandra
Department of Neurosurgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi – 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.333449

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Chandra P S. Authors, Reviewers, and Publishers- The Ecosystem for Scientific Documentation: Is this Enough?. Neurol India 2021;69:1516-7

How to cite this URL:
Chandra P S. Authors, Reviewers, and Publishers- The Ecosystem for Scientific Documentation: Is this Enough?. Neurol India [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 27];69:1516-7. Available from: https://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2021/69/6/1516/333449




The edifice of scientific documentation is based on writing, reviewing, and publishing following a blinded peer review. This has been the age-old practice for validating any scientific technique, paradigms, method of treatment, or scientific hypothesis. The importance can be gauged by observing the papers published on this topic.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16] However, there is also a great need to strengthen this system currently.

In their overview of the peer-reviewed process, enhancing training for the reviewer: Lovejoy et al.[1] stresses the need for structured reviewer training. Education for reviewers should be ongoing, like training young authors on writing papers. It does sound a bit ironic that academic performances are based on publications. Still, no one seems to merit reviewing documents, especially when it happens to be the most crucial aspect of validating the scientific work. Therefore, regular accredited courses must be provided for reviewers, particularly to assess 1.) the strengths and weaknesses of a manuscript 2.) guide authors for improving scientific process and communications.

Enhancing the reviewer base and recruiting reviewers based on their expertise: Peer reviewing is often viewed as a task for senior-most faculty. Such a perception has several flaws. First, it would reduce the reviewer base over time and would not allow people to review papers of their expertise specifically. The training to review documents should be provided to junior faculty right from the beginning itself. Education for reviewing should go alongside training to write papers.

Reasons why reviewers usually reject manuscripts: Analysis of over 151 peer-reviewed research manuscripts published were re-reviewed by blinded reviewers. Eight areas were rated on a five-point scale (excellent, good, fair, unsatisfactory, and not acceptable). The eight areas were problem statement and background, research design, sampling, instrumentation, data collection, results, conclusion, writing, and importance. Finally, each reviewer was asked to use a four-point (definitely include; acceptable, probably have; questionable, probably exclude; exclude) global rating and give additional comments on merits or shortcomings of submission. It was seen that nearly two-fifths of the reviewers recommended rejection without marking unsatisfactory ratings on the checklist. The most important reasons for acceptance included importance, timeliness, relevance, and critical pertinent problem. Poor quality writing was also an essential factor for acceptance. As summarized by Bordage[6], both science and good writing determined acceptance. Hence, it becomes necessary for authors to pay attention to language and grammar. A manuscript with significant language and grammar shortcomings usually precludes the reviewers from paying attention to the scientific aspects of the paper.

Understanding the role of the reviewer: There are some excellent papers published describing[6],[9],[15],[17],[18] the reviewer's responsibilities. Firstly, the reviewer needs to be 'professional,' meaning to participate in the review process as a professional obligation to enhance the quality of the paper. It's essential not only to identify shortcomings but also to offer suggestions to fix the unidentified problems. It's equally important not to use overt criticisms. If any, they may be directed to the Editor. The reviewer needs to be 'scientific'. The reviewer should understand that their role is contributing scientific knowledge and not as a proof reader. It's again important to be 'timely.' Editors notice when a reviewer sticks to deadlines (or when they don't). Several publishing companies now have an internal rating system of reviewers. Currently, platforms are being built which are building the credibility of professional competence not only based on publications but also on the reviewing capabilities. Reviewers have also been advised to be 'emphatic,' i.e., treat others the way you want to be treated. Reviewers should be 'open' while reviewing, even from a subject they do not have adequate expertise in. They should not try to form opinions to guess the place or institute from which the paper has been published. Finally, the reviewer should be 'organized.' They should specifically start with an overview, give feedback on the paper structure, quality of data sources, investigation methods, methodology, argument flow, and conclusions' validity. The reviewer should comment on the paper style/voice and give suggestions for improvement.

The current practice of peer review has been in practice for several decades. Though it has several shortcomings, it still forms the best method for validating scientific publications. Since reviewing forms a critical component to validate the strengths and weaknesses of a paper, it is crucial to develop a robust reviewer rating system. Platforms assessing the merit of authors based on publications should also develop a methodology based on an assessment of reviewer capabilities. Both publishing and reviewing complete the cycle of scientific publishing. It is essential to strengthening both to create an optimal ecosystem.



 
  References Top

1.
Lovejoy TI, Revenson TA, France CR. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Ann Behav Med 2011;42:1-13.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Azer SA, Ramani S, Peterson R. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals. Med Teach 2012;34:698-704.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
DeMaria AN. What constitutes a great review? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1314-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Eva KW. The reviewer is always right: peer review of research in Medical Education. Med Educ 2009;43:2-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Dumenco L, Engle DL, Goodell K, Nagler A, Ovitsh RK, Whicker SA. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship. Acad Med 2017;92:147-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001;76:889-96.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Bordage G, Caelleigh AS, Steinecke A, Bland CJ, Crandall SJ, McGaghie WC, et al. Review criteria for research manuscripts. Acad Med 2001;76:897-978.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Triggle CR, Triggle DJ. What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”? Vasc Health Risk Manag 2007;3:39-53.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Evans AT, McNutt RA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:422-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c5729.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Green SM, Callaham ML. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability. Ann Emerg Med 2011;57:149-152 e144.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Sidalak D, Purdy E, Luckett-Gatopoulos S, Murray H, Thoma B, Chan TM. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors. Acad Med 2017;92:201-204.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med 2007;4:e40.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA 2002;287:2781-2783.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998;280:229-231.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Norman G. Editorial - how bad is medical education research anyway? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2007;12:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Nagler A, Ovitsh R, Dumenco L, Whicker S, Engle DL, Goodell K. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process. Acad Med 2019;94:1437-42.  Back to cited text no. 18
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
   
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow