Peer Review at JGIM.

Abstract

S cientific peer review is imperfect, and efforts to improve the process have had limited impact. For example, concealing reviewer or author identity, using a statistical checklist, or training referees has yielded mixed results at best. However, until new approaches (e.g. post-publication review) are tried and evaluated, peer review remains the scientific community’s primarymechanism for ensuring editorial quality and principal bulwark against error. JGIM’s approach to editorial review is not dissimilar from that employed by our peer publications. We use a three-stage process, and at each stage we ask of the research, Bis it new, is it true, and will it change practice.^ First, the co-editors in chief and senior associate editor evaluate manuscripts for fit and potential impact. Manuscripts that pass this initial bar are sent to a deputy editor for a secondary, in-depth review. A subset of these manuscripts are sent on for peer review. We ask peer reviewers to do three things: first, identify scientific strengths and deficiencies; second, assess impact on the field of general internal medicine; and third, help authors convey their ideas with greater clarity. We are biased, of course, but we think that as a group, JGIM peer reviewers are exceptionally conscientious at accomplishing these tasks. While we ask reviewers to make recommendations regarding acceptance, we are mindful of the unreliability of this process and use these recommendations as only one element in what is ultimately an editorial decision. Many good papers are returned to authors with regrets, and no doubt we reject some potentially important and impactful work. Peer reviewers, editors, and the editorial process are all fallible.We are grateful to authors who continue to submit to the journal, hoping that we finally get it right. JGIM would like to thank the many talented people who have volunteered their time to serve as peer reviewers for the journal over the past 12 months. In 2015–2016, 795 reviewers provided a total of 957 reviews with a mean quality score of 4.4 on a scale of 1–6 (as judged by our JGIM deputy editors). Of these, 154 provided at least two reviews, and 8 provided three or more. We are indebted to them for their service. Among this group of dedicated peer reviewers, there is a group that stands out. These top peer reviewers performed at least two reviews between July 2015 and June 2016, returned all reviews within 30 days, and received a quality score of 4 or greater (out of a maximum score of 6) on all reviews. An asterisk identifies the 88 reviewers who meet these criteria. We congratulate them on their service to the academic community and thank them for their efforts on behalf of the journal.