997
EDITORIAL
Peer review: Get involved
P
eer review is the gold standard for intimately in the development and interprevetting the quality of a scientific comtation of new knowledge under a code of munication.1 In its classic form, it is a confidentiality and impartiality. I am continhighly selective process that involves a small ually impressed by the degree to which number of content experts and an editor reviewers honor this responsibility with fair who assess a manuscript for quality, novelty, and articulate author feedback. I believe and impact while maintaining the confidenmany doors are opened by saying “yes” to tiality of the peer reviewers. This approach reviews and sharing one’s thought processes dates back at least to 1732 but was not with leaders in the field. Many young adopted widely until the photocopier was clinicians and scientists gain their first introduced.2 It is the mainstay of the major professional recognition by serving as ophthalmology and vision science journals, reviewers, and I make a point of encouraging including the Journal of Cataract & Refracclinical and research fellows at our program tive Surgery. to get involved. The motive need not be William J. Dupps Jr, Even so, the classic peer-review process entirely selfless: An author who learns to MD, PhD has drawn criticism for (1) nonpublication think like a reviewer becomes a better author. of good science that does not meet a particular journal’s deRegardless of the form taken, peer review will depend mographic or is rejected because of limited page space, (2) ultimately on one thing: expert human participation. publication lag due to the length and iterative nature of the The 1986 book Mind over Machine6 (given to me by review process, (3) idiosyncratic or biased criticisms from an ophthalmology mentor, Dr. Jeffrey Nerad) argued reviewers, (4) limited reliability in detecting methodological from Hubert Dreyfus’ perspective as a philosophy proerrors or fraud, and (5) inadequate recognition of reviewer fessor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology efforts.3 We acknowledge these potential shortcomings and and University of California Berkeley during the dawn of the computer science age that experience-based experience them on occasion as editors and as authors of human intuition will still outperform artificial intelliour own submissions to peer-reviewed journals. gence in many expert tasks.6 As stated by Blaise Pascal, In an age of Internet ubiquity, unlimited digital server space, and crowdsourcing, some have heralded the death “The heart has its reasons of which reason knows of traditional peer review. Attempts to counter the issues nothing.” Whether a single reviewer is used or the entire above have included, roughly in order, (1) review-less or Twitterverse, individuals with content expertise and a nonselective review processes that place no limits on the commitment to the mission and guiding principles of number of accepted manuscripts, (2) open or postpublicapeer review will still have to show up. Although some tion review processes that publish immediately then seek analyses have suggested that there is no crisis in reader/reviewer feedback,3,4 (3) transparent review proscientific peer-reviewer supply,7 clinically oriented jourcesses that identify reviewers and sometimes publish their nals face additional challenges in recruiting content names and their critiques with the manuscript,5 (4) autoexperts because many manage part- or full-time clinical practices and face increasing administrative burdens mated software-based approaches to scan submissions for outside their clinical time. It is not unusual for a JCRS formatting errors, plagiarism, and even statistical errors, editor to identify and invite 5 or 6 potential reviewers and (5) more aggressive incentivization of reviewers. for a paper before 2 reviewers agree to take on the These developments and studies of their effects on publitask, and several papers have required 13 or more invication quality will surely inform efforts to address shorttations. Neither classic peer review nor any of the newer comings in the classic approach. Even so, there are still paradigms can survive without a steady supply of many important advantages of classic peer review. Authors content experts who are committed to the cause. still enjoy the prestige and impact of work published in So get involved and help shape the process. We need peer-reviewed journals.3 Selectivity enhances citations and young reviewers who are just beginning their academic improves impact factors. Reviewers who are not “outed” and clinical careers, and we need reviewers who are “long feel freer to express critical views than reviewers who in the tooth” to share the wisdom and perspective that perceive a risk of retaliation, and this enhances rigor. There only time and experience can provide. We need reviewers are also important benefits to reviewers. Reviewers are who have clinical practices and reviewers who run research extended a significant responsibility and participate Q 2017 ASCRS and ESCRS Published by Elsevier Inc.
0886-3350/$ - see frontmatter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.002
998
EDITORIAL
programs. And we desperately need their mentorship of trainees so they too can join the ranks of our reviewers. Peer-reviewed publications are still the currency of academic life, and because of this, the reviewer performs an essential function at the heart of academic ophthalmology and the related sciences. If you are not currently a reviewer for JCRS, please consider becoming one. If you are currently a reviewer, thank you. When the call comes, please answer. If you are a member the JCRS 100 Club (100C reviews), you are a model of selflessness in the service of our profession and we thank you in a special way. At the end of each calendar year, we will continue to acknowledge every person who has reviewed for the journal that year, and we have implemented additional recognitions for those who have gone far beyond the call of duty. These efforts fall short of expressing our full gratitude and the true worth of each reviewer’s efforts. Nevertheless, we encourage readers to look through the list and
Volume 43 Issue 8 August 2017
please add your own name to this distinguished group in the upcoming year! William J. Dupps Jr, MD, PhD REFERENCES
1. Koch DD. Peer review: a group activity [editorial]. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:1707 2. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20:357–358 3. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review–a survey. Front Neurosci 2015; 9:169. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4444765/pdf/fnins-09-00169.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017 4. Allan B, Morlet N, Wormald R. Journals and the internet. Use of the internet for on line peer review must be explored further. BMJ 1997; 314:1352. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126577/pdf /9158493.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017 5. Papatriantafyllou M. Peer review: the future is here. FEBS Lett 2017 Aug. 14 [Epub ahead of print] 6. Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE. Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford, UK, Basil Blackwell, 1986 7. Vines T, Rieseberg L, Smith H. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. [letter]. Nature 2010; 468:1041. Available at: https://www.nature.com/nature/jour nal/v468/n7327/pdf/4681041a.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017
EDITORIAL
Peer review: Get involved
P
eer review is the gold standard for intimately in the development and interprevetting the quality of a scientific comtation of new knowledge under a code of munication.1 In its classic form, it is a confidentiality and impartiality. I am continhighly selective process that involves a small ually impressed by the degree to which number of content experts and an editor reviewers honor this responsibility with fair who assess a manuscript for quality, novelty, and articulate author feedback. I believe and impact while maintaining the confidenmany doors are opened by saying “yes” to tiality of the peer reviewers. This approach reviews and sharing one’s thought processes dates back at least to 1732 but was not with leaders in the field. Many young adopted widely until the photocopier was clinicians and scientists gain their first introduced.2 It is the mainstay of the major professional recognition by serving as ophthalmology and vision science journals, reviewers, and I make a point of encouraging including the Journal of Cataract & Refracclinical and research fellows at our program tive Surgery. to get involved. The motive need not be William J. Dupps Jr, Even so, the classic peer-review process entirely selfless: An author who learns to MD, PhD has drawn criticism for (1) nonpublication think like a reviewer becomes a better author. of good science that does not meet a particular journal’s deRegardless of the form taken, peer review will depend mographic or is rejected because of limited page space, (2) ultimately on one thing: expert human participation. publication lag due to the length and iterative nature of the The 1986 book Mind over Machine6 (given to me by review process, (3) idiosyncratic or biased criticisms from an ophthalmology mentor, Dr. Jeffrey Nerad) argued reviewers, (4) limited reliability in detecting methodological from Hubert Dreyfus’ perspective as a philosophy proerrors or fraud, and (5) inadequate recognition of reviewer fessor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology efforts.3 We acknowledge these potential shortcomings and and University of California Berkeley during the dawn of the computer science age that experience-based experience them on occasion as editors and as authors of human intuition will still outperform artificial intelliour own submissions to peer-reviewed journals. gence in many expert tasks.6 As stated by Blaise Pascal, In an age of Internet ubiquity, unlimited digital server space, and crowdsourcing, some have heralded the death “The heart has its reasons of which reason knows of traditional peer review. Attempts to counter the issues nothing.” Whether a single reviewer is used or the entire above have included, roughly in order, (1) review-less or Twitterverse, individuals with content expertise and a nonselective review processes that place no limits on the commitment to the mission and guiding principles of number of accepted manuscripts, (2) open or postpublicapeer review will still have to show up. Although some tion review processes that publish immediately then seek analyses have suggested that there is no crisis in reader/reviewer feedback,3,4 (3) transparent review proscientific peer-reviewer supply,7 clinically oriented jourcesses that identify reviewers and sometimes publish their nals face additional challenges in recruiting content names and their critiques with the manuscript,5 (4) autoexperts because many manage part- or full-time clinical practices and face increasing administrative burdens mated software-based approaches to scan submissions for outside their clinical time. It is not unusual for a JCRS formatting errors, plagiarism, and even statistical errors, editor to identify and invite 5 or 6 potential reviewers and (5) more aggressive incentivization of reviewers. for a paper before 2 reviewers agree to take on the These developments and studies of their effects on publitask, and several papers have required 13 or more invication quality will surely inform efforts to address shorttations. Neither classic peer review nor any of the newer comings in the classic approach. Even so, there are still paradigms can survive without a steady supply of many important advantages of classic peer review. Authors content experts who are committed to the cause. still enjoy the prestige and impact of work published in So get involved and help shape the process. We need peer-reviewed journals.3 Selectivity enhances citations and young reviewers who are just beginning their academic improves impact factors. Reviewers who are not “outed” and clinical careers, and we need reviewers who are “long feel freer to express critical views than reviewers who in the tooth” to share the wisdom and perspective that perceive a risk of retaliation, and this enhances rigor. There only time and experience can provide. We need reviewers are also important benefits to reviewers. Reviewers are who have clinical practices and reviewers who run research extended a significant responsibility and participate Q 2017 ASCRS and ESCRS Published by Elsevier Inc.
0886-3350/$ - see frontmatter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.002
998
EDITORIAL
programs. And we desperately need their mentorship of trainees so they too can join the ranks of our reviewers. Peer-reviewed publications are still the currency of academic life, and because of this, the reviewer performs an essential function at the heart of academic ophthalmology and the related sciences. If you are not currently a reviewer for JCRS, please consider becoming one. If you are currently a reviewer, thank you. When the call comes, please answer. If you are a member the JCRS 100 Club (100C reviews), you are a model of selflessness in the service of our profession and we thank you in a special way. At the end of each calendar year, we will continue to acknowledge every person who has reviewed for the journal that year, and we have implemented additional recognitions for those who have gone far beyond the call of duty. These efforts fall short of expressing our full gratitude and the true worth of each reviewer’s efforts. Nevertheless, we encourage readers to look through the list and
Volume 43 Issue 8 August 2017
please add your own name to this distinguished group in the upcoming year! William J. Dupps Jr, MD, PhD REFERENCES
1. Koch DD. Peer review: a group activity [editorial]. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:1707 2. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 2002; 20:357–358 3. Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review–a survey. Front Neurosci 2015; 9:169. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4444765/pdf/fnins-09-00169.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017 4. Allan B, Morlet N, Wormald R. Journals and the internet. Use of the internet for on line peer review must be explored further. BMJ 1997; 314:1352. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126577/pdf /9158493.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017 5. Papatriantafyllou M. Peer review: the future is here. FEBS Lett 2017 Aug. 14 [Epub ahead of print] 6. Dreyfus HL, Dreyfus SE. Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford, UK, Basil Blackwell, 1986 7. Vines T, Rieseberg L, Smith H. No crisis in supply of peer reviewers. [letter]. Nature 2010; 468:1041. Available at: https://www.nature.com/nature/jour nal/v468/n7327/pdf/4681041a.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017
