A Tool for Reviewers

Peer Review and the PJOHNS: Principles, Problems, and Promise

Peer review on the Internet: A better class of conversation

Editorial: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Will Not Accept Clinical Research Manuscripts Previously Posted to Preprint Servers.

Most of the journals in Croatia adopted the open access (OA) model and their content is freely accessible and available for reuse without restrictions except that attribution be given to the author(s) and journal. There are 444 Croatian scholarly, professional, popular and trade OA journals available in the national repository of OA journals Hrcak, and 217 of them use peer review process as the primary quality assurance system. The goal of our study was to investigate the peer review process used by the Croatian OA journals and the editors’ attitude towards open peer review.An online survey was sent to the Hrcak journal editors with 39 questions grouped in: journal general information, a number of submitted/rejected/accepted manuscripts and timeliness of publishing, peer review process characteristics, instructions for peer reviewers and open peer review. Responses were obtained from 152 editors (141 complete and 11 partial). All journals employ peer review process except one. The data were collected from February to July 2017.The majority of journals come from the humanities (n=50, 33%) and social sciences (n=37, 24%). Less represented are journals from the field of biomedicine (n=22, 14%), technical sciences (n=16, 11%), natural sciences (n=12, 8%), biotechnical sciences (n=10, 7%) and interdisciplinary journals (n=3, 2%). Average journal submission is 54 manuscripts per year, but there are big differences among journals: maximum submission is 550 manuscripts, and minimum just five. In average journal publishes 23 papers after the reviewers’ and editors’ acceptance. In average it takes 16 days for sending the manuscript to the reviewer, 49 days for all the reviewers to send the journal a detailed report on the manuscript, 14 days to the editors’ decision, and another 60 days for the paper to be published.External peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board or employees of the journal’s parent institution was used by 86 journals (60%). Other journals use external peer review process where reviewers are not members of the editorial board but could be employees of the journal’s parent institution (n=40, 28%), and editorial peer review. Remaining 10% journals combine previous three types of the peer review. Only 20% journals use exclusively reviewers from abroad, 44% are combining international and national reviewers, and 36% journals use only reviewers from Croatia.The majority of journals provide two reviews for each manuscript, and the process is double blind. Detailed instructions for peer reviewers are provided by less than half of the journals (n=57, 40%), but ethical issues like plagiarism, conflict of interest, confidentiality etc., are neglected. Usually, a reviewer is not informed of the final decision upon the manuscript, and reviews are not shared among reviewers.Somehow surprising was the opinion of the majority of the editors that reviewers must get credit for their efforts (n=121, 85%). On the other hand, editors are not familiar with the concept of open peer review, which can be easily used for that purpose. Some editors believe that open peer review is related to the identity disclosure: both authors’ and reviewers’ (n=35, 25%), reviewers’ (n=27, 19%), and authors’ identity (n=14, 10%). For many editors open peer review implies publicly available reviews (n=65, 36%) and authors’ responses (n=46, 33%). Open peer review is an unknown concept for some editors (n=32, 23%).In spite of all criticism traditional peer review is predominant in Croatian OA journals. Our findings show that traditional peer review is still the preferred review mechanism for the majority of journals in the study.

JID Innovations and Peer Review

Transparency, accountability, reward and recognition.

“Thinking With” When Peer Reviewing: Introduction to the <i>PoLAR Online</i> Emergent Conversation on Peer Review

Several divergent standpoints are hosted under the umbrella of Peer Review. Authors, who wish to see the results of scrupulous work published, in the anticipation of career promotion or secure funding. Editors, who are under pressure to identify sound and novel research. Reviewers, who try to fit a thoughtful and time-consuming process within busy schedules, often receiving no credit for it. And Publishers competing in a transforming landscape of fast and abundant science publishing. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A comprehensive policy on publication ethics has been published by the World Association of Medical Edi-tors (WAME), which addresses all the major areas of ethics which all contemporary science journals should consider. The Annals of King Edward Medical Uni-versity will publish different parts of WAME’s public-cation policy for its readers, authors and reviewers . Definition of a Peer-Reviewed Journal A peer – reviewed biomedical journal is one that regu-larly obtains advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. Peer review is intended to improve the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of published manuscripts and to help editors decide which manuscripts to pub-lish. Peer review does not guarantee manuscript qua-lity and does not reliably detect scientific misconduct. Peer reviewers should be experts in the manu-script’s content area, research methods, or both; a criti-que of writing style alone is not sufficient. Peer revie-wers should be selected based on their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews. For research manuscripts, editors may, in addition, seek the opinion of a statistical reviewer. Peer reviewers advise editors on how a manuscript might be improved and on its priority for publication in that journal. Editors decide whether and under whi-ch conditions manuscripts are accepted for publication, assisted by reviewers’ advice. Peer reviewers are sometimes paid for their efforts but usually provide their opinions free of charge, as a service to their profession. Editors should require all peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, related to a particular manu-script and should take this information into account when deciding how to use their review. Generally speaking, people with a direct financial interest in the results of the manuscripts should not be reviewers. To be considered peer reviewed, a journal should have obtained external reviews for the majority of manuscripts it publishes, including all original rese-arch and review articles. Some editors request peer re-view for other kinds of articles, such as opinion pieces (commentaries / editorials) and correspondence. To have been peer reviewed, a manuscript should have been reviewed by at least one external reviewer; it is typical to have two reviewers and sometimes more opinions are sought. Editors of peer-reviewed journals need not send all submitted manuscripts out for review. Manuscripts that seem unlikely to be published in that journal may be returned to authors without external review, to allow authors to submit the manuscript to another jou-rnal without delay and to make efficient use of revie-wers’ and editors’ time. Editors should state their journal’s peer review policies, including which kinds of article are peer re-viewed and by how many reviewers, in the instructions for authors. Editors should also periodically publish statistics describing their journal’s review process, such as number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rate, and average times from manuscript submission to rejection letter to authors and, for accepted manusc-ripts, time to publication. Acknowledgments The “Definition of a Peer – Reviewed Journal”, is reproduced from “Policy Statements” published by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). (www.wame.org)

Conflict of interest in medical publishing exists when a participant’s private interests compete with his or her responsibilities to the scientific community, readers, and society. While conflict of interest is common, it reaches the level of concern when “a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by his or her competing interests”1. Having a competing interest does not, in itself, imply wrongdoing. But it can undermine the credibility of research results and damage public trust in medical journals. &#x0D; In recent years, the extent of conflict of interest in medical journal articles has been increasingly recognized. Medical journals and the popular media have published numerous examples of competing interests that seemed to have biased published reports 2,3,4. Organizations have expressed concern for the effects of conflicts of interest on research 5, publication 1,6,7 teaching8 and continuing medical and nursing education9.&#x0D; The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) is one of the institutions engaged in this discussion. WAME was established in 1995 10, 11 to facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed journals, improve editorial standards, and promote professionalism in medical editing 12. Membership in WAME is open to all editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals worldwide; small journals in resource-poor countries are well represented. As of December 2009, WAME had 1595 individual members representing 965 journals in 92 countries. WAME has broad participation as there are no dues and WAME activities are largely carried out through the member list serve and the member password-protected website.&#x0D; In March 2009, WAME released an updated policy statement, “Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals” 1. It details the issues WAME believes journals should address when establishing their own policies for conflict of interest. The editors of this journal thought that the issues were important enough to share with its readers. A summary of the statement is presented in the Table and the full statement 1 can be found on WAME’s website 12.&#x0D; How Does This Statement Differ From Earlier Conflict–of-Interest Statements?&#x0D; First, WAME expands the scope of competing interests. Other statements have been concerned almost exclusively with conflicts of interest related to financial ties to industry – companies that sell healthcare products. The assumption is that financial incentives are especially powerful and are not readily recognized without special efforts to make them apparent. WAME has extended the concept of financial conflict of interest to include the effects of clinical income. For example, physicians who earn their livelihood by reading mammograms or performing colonoscopies may be biased in favor of these technologies. WAME has also included non-financial conflicts of interest (or the appearance of one) related to scholarly commitment: “intellectual passion,” (the tendency to favor positions that one has already espoused or perhaps even established); personal relationships (the tendency to judge the works of friends/colleagues or competitors/foes differently because of the relationship); political or religious beliefs (the tendency to favor or reject positions because it affirms or challenges one’s political or religious beliefs); and institutional affiliations (the tendency to favor or reject results of research because of one’s institutional affiliations).&#x0D; Second, WAME did not prescribe a universal standard for when meaningful conflict of interest exists. Rather, it defined and recommended elements of conflict of interest policies and encouraged journals to establish their own standards. WAME left operational definitions and standards on the basic issues to member journals, recognizing that journals exist in very different contexts across the globe, standards for conflict of interest are evolving, and some journals already have well-established policies and standards. WAME does not presume to judge which conflicts require action and what the appropriate action may be, although its policy does offer factors to consider 1. Obviously, excessive concern for these and more comprehensive lists of possible competing interests could paralyze the peer review and publication process and is not feasible. Editors must make judgments as to the strength of the conflict, but to do so must have uncensored information. Similarly, readers need transparency about conflicts, and therefore editors should publish with every article all relevant author disclosures 1. &#x0D; Third, WAME confirms the seriousness of failure to disclose conflict of interest by indicating that editors have a responsibility for investigating, and if relevant acting, if competing interests surface after a manuscript is submitted or published. The intent is that allegations of failure to declare conflicts of interest must be taken seriously by journals.&#x0D; Finally, WAME has addressed in a single statement the conflicts of interests threatening all participants in the research and publication continuum, including authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Conflicts between editors and journal owners, which might affect both the accuracy of articles and the credibility of journals, have been addressed in another WAME policy statement 13.&#x0D; What Can Be Done About Conflict of Interest in Medical Journals?&#x0D; Conflicts of interest cannot be eliminated altogether but it can be managed so that it has the smallest possible effects on journal content and credibility. The backbone of managing conflicts of interest is full written disclosure; without it, nothing else is possible. Currently, authors may not reveal all of their competing interests and even if they do, journals too often do not publish them 14, so there is plenty of room for improvement. Even so, disclosure alone is an imperfect remedy; editors still must determine whether a conflict has sufficient potential to impair an individual’s objectivity such that the article should not be published. Even more work may be needed on reviewers’ and editors competing interests, given their critical role as gatekeepers for the medical literature.&#x0D; No statement will solve the conflict of interest problem, nor will it ever be solved altogether. As understanding of the problem and its management evolves, journals should be given latitude to establish their own standards, matching their policies to the best standards of their discipline and culture. WAME believes journals should make these policies readily accessible to everyone. All of us—editors, authors, reviewers, and readers--should be paying more attention to conflict of interest than we have been. We hope this statement serves that purpose.&#x0D; &#x0D; Acknowledgment&#x0D; The authors wish to warmly thank the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Officers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this editorial. Many thanks to President Margaret Winker (USA); Past President Michael Callaham (USA); Vice-President John Overbeke (Netherlands); Treasurer Tom Lang (USA); and Secretary Farrokh Habibzadeh (Iran). &#x0D; The WAME Statement on Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals was approved by the WAME Board in March 2009. Many thanks to the members of the WAME Ethics Committee and to the WAME Editorial Policy Committee for their insightful and helpful comments on an earlier version of the statement. Warm thanks to the WAME Board for their input and comments: Margaret Winker; Michael Callaham; John Overbeke; Tom Lang; Farrokh Habibzadeh; Adamson Muula (Malawi) and Rob Siebers (New Zealand).&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

The JAMA and NEJM Rulings and Their Impact on the Sanctity of Confidential Peer Review

Civility in Nursing Peer Review: Giving and Receiving Feedback

Moving toward a more objective peer review process

Peer Review: The Best of the Blemished?

Peer review—reject, accept, or major revision?