Reviewers and the review process

Abstract

This editorial is devoted to our reviewers. This journal has a double-blind peer review process in place at present and we are very reliant upon our reviewers to provide the expert opinion that helps our editors to make a decision on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers give up their time and energy to prepare the review. In the past year they have had to work through the Editorial Manager manuscript software system and now the ScholarOne™ Manuscript software system. It is no secret that manuscripts in this and other journals may take a long time to surface from review because of the constant challenge to recruit two reviewers. So, on behalf of the editors I would like to thank all those reviewers who, particularly in 2010, dealt with papers for this journal. Your contribution to the discipline of veterinary dermatology and the journal is very much appreciated, particularly as you are busy people whether based in specialty clinical practice, academia or other type of employment where time to review is always a scarce resource. When considering the move from single to double blind peer review the editors looked at a number of articles on this topic. One of these is by Charon Pierson about ‘Reviewing for Publication’ and this is provided as part of the resources for reviewers on the ScholarOne™ website for this journal. Based upon this article and other sources, there is embedded within the review process in ScholarOne™ a guidance sheet to help reviewers provide feedback on key features of the manuscript under review. In researching peer review we came across Sense About Science which is an independent charitable trust promoting good science and evidence in public debates based in the UK. In 2009 Sense About Science launched a survey to identify the preferences and concerns of authors and reviewers and to collate their views on future challenges in peer reviewed publishing. The results of this survey were published on the Sense about Science website: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/395. The 2009 survey was based in part on a survey carried out in 2007 and published by the Publishing Research Consortium as ‘Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community – an international study’. This is available online: http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/PeerReviewFullPRCReport-final.pdf. One of the underlying factors that led to the surveys is the ongoing debate that the peer review process does not work – even though it underpins the work of most research workers in academia and beyond. The results of the 2007 survey are drawn from 3040 respondents contacted via listings on the Thomson Scientific database, they include a number of points, a few examples of which are given below. 1. Peer review improves the quality of the published paper. Researchers overwhelmingly (90%) said the main area of effectiveness of peer review was in improving the quality of the published paper. In their own experience as authors, 89% said that peer review had improved their last published paper, both in terms of the language or presentation but also in terms of correcting scientific errors. 2. Double-blind review was seen as the most effective. Of the four types of peer review discussed, double-blind review had the most respondents (71%) who perceived it to be effective, followed (in declining order) by single-blind (52%), post-publication (37%) and open peer review (26%). Respondents did not have personal experience of all types of review and tended to rate more highly the systems they had experienced. It is notable, though, that although 37% of respondents said that post-publication review was effective, only 8% had had experience of it as authors. 3. Long review time was a cause of dissatisfaction. Authors said the peer review of their last published paper took an average of 80 days. They were evenly balanced on whether or not this was satisfactory. There was a clear correlation between the reported time taken for peer review and the author’s satisfaction: 67% were satisfied provided the time was under 30 days, but this dropped to 10% for 3–6 months, and to 9% for longer than 6 months. 4. The most productive reviewers were overloaded. Some 90% of authors were also reviewers, acting regularly for about 3.5 journals and a further 4.2 journals occasionally. They reported reviewing an average of 8 papers in the last 12 months, compared to the maximum of 9 that they said they were prepared to review. Active reviewers, defined as those doing 6 or more reviews in the last 12 months, completed an average of 14 reviews per year, nearly twice the overall figure. This means that although ‘active’ reviewers make up 44% of all reviewers, they are responsible for 79% of all reviews! It is clear that some Veterinary Dermatology reviewers are also reviewing for a number of other journals, as well authoring their own manuscripts. This might bring to mind the quotation: ‘If you want something done then ask a busy person’. Apparently this quote came from Lucille Ball and while I am a little bemused to find myself quoting someone who was an actress some time ago one should also bear in mind the other part of the quotation: ‘The more things you do, the more you can do’. Well, even reviewers are human and so we are keen as editors not to overburden our productive reviewers. Of course reviewers are welcome to decline an invitation to review a manuscript and it is very helpful to have some alternative names to invite. Veterinary dermatology like many disciplines is becoming more complicated in terms of the techniques used in research and clinical studies and it is increasingly difficult for veterinarians to have the requisite experience of such techniques. Consequently we are also reliant on scientists for reviewing manuscripts and we are very grateful for their support of the journal. 5. About 20% of invitations to review are declined. As well as completing 8 reviews per year, the average reviewer declined about 2 invitations to review, mainly because of a lack of time. 6. The average review takes 5 h and is completed in 3–4 weeks. In the 2009 survey most respondents (84%) believed that without peer review there would be no control in scientific communication (the same as 2007) and 19% believed that peer review is unsustainable because there are too few willing reviewers. While this view might be worrying for editors of veterinary journals one also has to consider that reviewers also indicated that they review mainly because they believe they are playing an active role in the community (90%), and many enjoy being able to improve papers (85%). In the 2009 survey some 4037 researchers drawn from the ISI author database responded. In both the 2007 and 2009 surveys there was no clear indication that veterinary journals or authors were included. As ever, much of what we perceive, read and understand about peer review is drawn from publications drawn from the scientific and medical fields. There is little information published on peer review that is specific to the veterinary field. Even so, it is highly likely that authors, reviewers and editors in the veterinary field will identify with some of the findings of these surveys. The International Society of Veterinary Editors (ISVE) (http://veteditors.org/) recently published guidelines on animal research: Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare for Veterinary Journal Editors on their website. This is one example of how the ISVE will hopefully be able to close the gap between the veterinary and the medical/scientific publishing fields. This will involve reviewing and studying the process of publishing with specific reference to the veterinary sciences and may include looking at the peer review process. One recent development for the Veterinary Dermatology journal was the posting of an outline entitled ‘Preparing a publication’ which has been placed on the journals’s ScholarOne™ website and will also go on the journal’s Wiley OnLine Library website. This document is intended for people new to publishing (such as residents) and looking for some guidance for writing an article for the veterinary field. Ironically many of the cited resources within the document come from the human/scientific fields (q.v.). Hopefully ‘Preparing a publication’ and other articles will help veterinarians to develop our understanding and appreciation of what has sometimes been termed ‘Writing For Publication’ with specific reference to the veterinary world.