Value of Peer Review in Publishing

Abstract

Why bother with peer review in a world where quick access to information is of paramount importance? Does peer review just delay the flow of information to the readership, or is it a way to restrict information and thus to create conformity in the medical literature (in other words, a form of censorship)? As far as I am concerned, peer review is all about quality control and the integrity of published information. But do you, as a reader of CJHP, know what the peer review process actually involves? What’s in it for the reviewers, the authors, and the readers? At CJHP, the peer review process starts with a preliminary review of each article by one of the associate editors to establish if the manuscript is of interest to our readership. After this initial assessment, usually 2 reviewers with pertinent practice experience are selected from the journal’s pool of volunteer reviewers. The reviewers are given 4 weeks to go over the manuscript, from the perspective of both scientific content and presentation, and to provide constructive feedback. The comments of the assigned associate editor and the reviewers’ evaluations are then sent back to the authors. The authors are asked to address the reviewers’ comments before the paper is again considered for publication. To minimize bias, the identity of the reviewers and the authors is not divulged (double blinding). Once the authors have responded to the reviewers’ comments, the editor reviews the document again to ensure that all of the comments have been addressed. The last step before publication is copy editing, where the focus is on style, format, and grammar. As you may have realized, the whole process is lengthy and intensive (unpublished report from CJHP strategic planning workshop, January 2006).