"Peer Review—Shame on Us"

«Peer review is a process, albeit flawed, which is critically important to the publication of new scientific knowledge. There is no greater praise for one’s work than the accolades and validation of respected colleagues and no greater reward than to have those same colleagues critique and improve your work. The process of peer review was first applied to academic journalism in 1752 (Kronick DA, Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321-1322) with the establishment of the Committee on Papers by the Royal Society of London to review the first scientific journal Philosophical Transactions. In 2016, the peer review process may be single-blinded, double-blinded, or open where authors and reviewers are known to one another and the reviewers may or may not be identified publicly. Virtually all of the most highly cited medical journals use the single-blinded process. The journal Nature is expanding on the traditional process, allowing authors to choose either single- or double-blinded review. JCMS uses the single-blinded process. I contemplated a change to a double-blinded review, as this is intuitively more rigorous, but anonymity is almost impossible to achieve and it requires a significant increase in workload for the administrative managing editor. In addition, the published literature on the subject suggests that the type of blinding does not affect the quality of reviews; therefore, we will continue to utilize the single-blinded process. I recently attended a meeting of the Council of Dermatology Editors, where Ms. Kate Perry, an editor with the publisher Wiley, presented the results of a survey that Wiley undertook in 2015 to better understand the peer review experience. The survey received 2982 responses (1.7% response rate) from reviewers across the geographic and subject areas serviced by Wiley journals. It has been estimated that more than 22 million hours were spent reviewing manuscripts for the top 12 publishers in 2013. The Wiley survey confirmed that the primary reason that reviewers freely give of their time and expertise is to support their research community and “pay forward” the good will of others who have reviewed their work. It was also interesting to note that reviewers are more likely to accept the invitation from prestigious journals, to spend more time reviewing these manuscripts, and to adhere to the journal’s deadlines. Forty-nine percent of reviewers review for more than 5 journals. The survey also noted that recognition and feedback were more important than more tangible rewards. The Wiley survey also revealed that three-quarters of all reviewers stated that they would like more training, with 89% of early career researchers requesting additional training. Peer review is the cornerstone of academic learning and it is taken for granted. There needs to be change, and nothing short of public shaming is likely to accomplish this. Academic institutions need to recognize peer review as an integral component of scientific research and provide it equal merit to other research activities. Societies and institutions that survive and flourish as a result of the unpaid work of reviewers need to recognize reviewer work, provide reviewer training, and lobby academic institutions and granting agencies to formally record and specifically acknowledge our colleagues engaged in the peer review process. JCMS can, I believe, make a difference. I intend to lead by example and address the most significant issues that were elucidated in the Wiley survey. I will seek out an educator to meet the reviewer request for more training. I have initiated a Wall of Honor on the masthead where the names of reviewers will be published in a timely and dynamic manner. SAGE Publications, our publisher, is now integrated with Publons, which is an online service that will record and verify the work of reviewers so that this work may be highlighted for career advancement purposes. I will review the CV formats of our academic institutions and request that a section be allocated for the purpose of listing reviewer work now that Publons is integrated with our publisher. I also hope that each of you—our authors, reviewers, and readers—will take this message to your institutions and speak out for the recognition that our colleagues who undertake peer review deserve.

 

Kirk Barber, MD, FRCPC

Editor-in-Chief, JCMS»

(reprodução de texto com a autoria identificada que colega nos fez entretanto chegar)