AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY® FRANK
W.
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief
NEWELL,
Suite 1415, 435 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60611
EDITORIAL BOARD Thomas M. Aaberg, Atlnnta Douglas R. Anderson, Miami Jules Baum, Bostoll William M. Bourne, Rochester Ronald M. Burde. New York Fred Ederer, Bethesda Frederick T. Fraunfelder, Portland Frederick A. [akobiec. New York Michael A. Kass. SI. Louis
Steven G. Kramer, Sail Francisco Irving H. Leopold, lroine Robert Machemer, Durham Nancy M. Newman, San Francisco Don H. Nicholson, Miami Edward W. D. Norton, Miami Deborah Pavan-Langston, Boston Allen M. Putterman, Chicago Dennis Robertson, Rochester Merlyn M. Rodrigues, Baltimore
Stephen J. Ryan, Los Angeles Jerry A. Shields, Philadelphia M. Bruce Shields, Durham David Shoch, Chicago Ronald E. Smith, Los Angeles Bruce E. Spivey, San Francisco Bradley R. Straatsma, Los Angeles H. Stanley Thompson, Iowa City E. Michael Van Buskirk, Portland Gunter K. von Noorden, Houston
Published monthly by the OPHTHALMIC PUBLISHING COMPANY Suite 1415, 435 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Directors David Shoch. Preside/It Edward W. D. Norton, Vice President Frank W. Newell, Secretary and Treasurer
Bruce E. Spivey Bradley R. Straatsma
EDITORIAL Peer Review Frank W. Newell Peer: (1) An equal in civil standing or rank; one's equal before the law; (2) one who takes rank with another in point of natural gifts or other qualifications; an equal in any respect; (3) one who is associated or matched with another, a companion, mate, a rival. Review: (2) The act of looking over something with a view to correction or improvement; a revision of a book (an article, etc). Now rare. (7) A general account or criticism of a literary work (especially a new or recent one) either published separately or, more usually, as an article in a periodical or newspaper. Peer review has become the sine qua non of medical and scientific publishing. Authors speak of having published in peer review journals. Some universities and learned societies require publication in peer review journals for promotion or membership. The publications that qualify as having peer review are not defined. The term is mainly used as a synonym for excellence in journals that are distributed through paid subscription or as a perquisite of
membership in a professional association. No journal advertises itself as having peer review, although the instructions to authors often indicate that all material submitted has outside review before publication. Readers generally assume that the original articles published in the top notch professional journals have been reviewed and recommended for publication by experts other than the members of the editorial board. Not all material in a journal, however distinguished, necessarily undergoes outside review. Editorials, book reviews, solicited and special articles, letters to the editor, corrections, and news items are usually managed internally. Every article submitted to a journal does not have outside review. The review process is so demanding and time consuming that a decision may be made to reject a submission to the author without review. The mechanical preparation of such papers may be so faulty that the editor cannot judge the quality of the ideas. The paper may deal with a topic too complex, 221
222
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
too simple, or outside of the scope of the publication. The proportion of material submitted that is returned without outside review is not known but many journals that have a high rejection rate may return most typescripts without outside review. Some years ago The Journal asked that each reviewer answer a number of questions concerning each article: Is the subject matter original, important, and novel enough to justify publication in The Journal? Is the topic suitable for the readership of The Journal? Is the paper well organized and is it easy to read? Is the overall quality of the work in the top 25 percent in the field? Are adequate details of examination and diagnostic procedures described for any disorder or disease? Are the source and selection of the subjects adequately described? Are all of the subjects accounted for in a data analysis? Are any experimental methods or surgical procedures described in sufficient detail that the study may be repeated? Are the scientific methods sound? Are the statistical methods appropriate and do they justify the conclusions? Is each table properly titled and numbered? Does each table properly augment the text, or does it duplicate material already described in the text? Are the data presented accurately? Are the references accurate? Do the references refer specifically to the topic studied? Are there too many, too few, or too many from a single source? Are the references prepared in the style used by The Journal? Do the illustrations complement the article? Are they likely to reproduce well? Are the legends prepared in The Journal style? Do they adequately and succinctly explain the figures? If the referees answer each question affirmatively the article is likely to be recommended for publication. But then two main questions arise: (1) the suitability of the topic for publication in The Journal and (2) the effort required to prepare the material for publication. The originality and timeliness of the topic involve a number of factors not always obvious to the contributor or reviewer. Research, however outstanding, if without obvious clinical relevance may be more suitable for a basic science
February, 1990
journal. Case reports that describe a single patient are often more suited to the Letters section. Sometimes articles are awaiting publication that deal with the same topic and duplication is not desirable. Preparation of the material for publishing mainly concerns the author's attention to the Instructions to Authors that are printed frequently. Double-spacing of typescripts is the rule posted in every writing class, yet, a surprising number of typescripts are submitted with single-spaced references, quotations, or title pages. Many authors prefer abbreviations or initials although The Journal abbreviates only units of measurement. Inaccurate references may disqualify a typescript. Exact measurements must be given and not subjective data. Numbers must be provided with percentages in parentheses where appropriate. Percentages without numbers are never adequate. Enough information must be provided so that the reader will know what was done. The Journal attempts to be certain that all authors submitting a paper have participated in the study by having them sign the disclosure statement, "The authors of this study confirm that each has contributed significantly to the formulation and execution of the study and the writing of the paper. The authors further confirm that they have read and concur in the writing and conclusion of the typescript, data, and illustrations submitted therein." Some of the startling instances of fraud in the recent decade have occurred in the laboratories of renowned investigators in which it appears that the famed author provided long-distance supervision and was so distant from the study as to not know the details of studies conducted in their own laboratories or clinics. Editors learn that some established investigators submit material that they have not read. Some individuals apparently permit their name to be attached to typescripts so that the editor, and not themselves will bear the onus of rejection. Contributors sometimes request that their papers not be reviewed by particular authorities and the editor of The Journal complies. Conversely some authors have channeled suggestions through members of the editorial board that the authors are so distinguished that outside review (or even editorial correction) is not required. Scientific referees are essential to the peer review process. In a field that encompasses as many different disciplines as ophthalmology, no individual can be familiar with all of its
Vol. 109, No.2
aspects. The reader has a right to assume that the articles are medically and scientifically sound and have been reviewed by experts in the field. Authors should be assured that the decision to accept or reject does not reflect special interests. With the emphasis in the past decade upon fraud in publishing, all too often mention of peer review stimulates a discussion of fraud in science. This is a pity for the purpose of peer review is not to ferret out fraud. Indeed, there is usually no way in which the reviewer or editor can determine if a study is valid or fabricated. Purely and simply, the reviewer advises the editor, not the authors, concerning the suitability of material for publication. The contribution of the referee cannot be overestimated. In many instances the referee
Editorial
223
provides a more current or pertinent understanding of a topic than that given in the paper. Sometimes it is evident that more thought has gone into the review than into the original paper. Referees labor long and anonymously. Their only reward is that medicine and its publications are richer for the effort. Sometimes disappointed authors guess that a particular member of the editorial board is responsible for an unfavorable review or rejection of their typescript. Mainly their guesses are wrong. Many papers with favorable reviews are so technical or so distant from clinically applicable material that they are rejected by the editor. Other papers that have an initially unfavorable review may be accepted for publication after revision.
W.
Publisher and Editor-in-Chief
NEWELL,
Suite 1415, 435 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60611
EDITORIAL BOARD Thomas M. Aaberg, Atlnnta Douglas R. Anderson, Miami Jules Baum, Bostoll William M. Bourne, Rochester Ronald M. Burde. New York Fred Ederer, Bethesda Frederick T. Fraunfelder, Portland Frederick A. [akobiec. New York Michael A. Kass. SI. Louis
Steven G. Kramer, Sail Francisco Irving H. Leopold, lroine Robert Machemer, Durham Nancy M. Newman, San Francisco Don H. Nicholson, Miami Edward W. D. Norton, Miami Deborah Pavan-Langston, Boston Allen M. Putterman, Chicago Dennis Robertson, Rochester Merlyn M. Rodrigues, Baltimore
Stephen J. Ryan, Los Angeles Jerry A. Shields, Philadelphia M. Bruce Shields, Durham David Shoch, Chicago Ronald E. Smith, Los Angeles Bruce E. Spivey, San Francisco Bradley R. Straatsma, Los Angeles H. Stanley Thompson, Iowa City E. Michael Van Buskirk, Portland Gunter K. von Noorden, Houston
Published monthly by the OPHTHALMIC PUBLISHING COMPANY Suite 1415, 435 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Directors David Shoch. Preside/It Edward W. D. Norton, Vice President Frank W. Newell, Secretary and Treasurer
Bruce E. Spivey Bradley R. Straatsma
EDITORIAL Peer Review Frank W. Newell Peer: (1) An equal in civil standing or rank; one's equal before the law; (2) one who takes rank with another in point of natural gifts or other qualifications; an equal in any respect; (3) one who is associated or matched with another, a companion, mate, a rival. Review: (2) The act of looking over something with a view to correction or improvement; a revision of a book (an article, etc). Now rare. (7) A general account or criticism of a literary work (especially a new or recent one) either published separately or, more usually, as an article in a periodical or newspaper. Peer review has become the sine qua non of medical and scientific publishing. Authors speak of having published in peer review journals. Some universities and learned societies require publication in peer review journals for promotion or membership. The publications that qualify as having peer review are not defined. The term is mainly used as a synonym for excellence in journals that are distributed through paid subscription or as a perquisite of
membership in a professional association. No journal advertises itself as having peer review, although the instructions to authors often indicate that all material submitted has outside review before publication. Readers generally assume that the original articles published in the top notch professional journals have been reviewed and recommended for publication by experts other than the members of the editorial board. Not all material in a journal, however distinguished, necessarily undergoes outside review. Editorials, book reviews, solicited and special articles, letters to the editor, corrections, and news items are usually managed internally. Every article submitted to a journal does not have outside review. The review process is so demanding and time consuming that a decision may be made to reject a submission to the author without review. The mechanical preparation of such papers may be so faulty that the editor cannot judge the quality of the ideas. The paper may deal with a topic too complex, 221
222
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
too simple, or outside of the scope of the publication. The proportion of material submitted that is returned without outside review is not known but many journals that have a high rejection rate may return most typescripts without outside review. Some years ago The Journal asked that each reviewer answer a number of questions concerning each article: Is the subject matter original, important, and novel enough to justify publication in The Journal? Is the topic suitable for the readership of The Journal? Is the paper well organized and is it easy to read? Is the overall quality of the work in the top 25 percent in the field? Are adequate details of examination and diagnostic procedures described for any disorder or disease? Are the source and selection of the subjects adequately described? Are all of the subjects accounted for in a data analysis? Are any experimental methods or surgical procedures described in sufficient detail that the study may be repeated? Are the scientific methods sound? Are the statistical methods appropriate and do they justify the conclusions? Is each table properly titled and numbered? Does each table properly augment the text, or does it duplicate material already described in the text? Are the data presented accurately? Are the references accurate? Do the references refer specifically to the topic studied? Are there too many, too few, or too many from a single source? Are the references prepared in the style used by The Journal? Do the illustrations complement the article? Are they likely to reproduce well? Are the legends prepared in The Journal style? Do they adequately and succinctly explain the figures? If the referees answer each question affirmatively the article is likely to be recommended for publication. But then two main questions arise: (1) the suitability of the topic for publication in The Journal and (2) the effort required to prepare the material for publication. The originality and timeliness of the topic involve a number of factors not always obvious to the contributor or reviewer. Research, however outstanding, if without obvious clinical relevance may be more suitable for a basic science
February, 1990
journal. Case reports that describe a single patient are often more suited to the Letters section. Sometimes articles are awaiting publication that deal with the same topic and duplication is not desirable. Preparation of the material for publishing mainly concerns the author's attention to the Instructions to Authors that are printed frequently. Double-spacing of typescripts is the rule posted in every writing class, yet, a surprising number of typescripts are submitted with single-spaced references, quotations, or title pages. Many authors prefer abbreviations or initials although The Journal abbreviates only units of measurement. Inaccurate references may disqualify a typescript. Exact measurements must be given and not subjective data. Numbers must be provided with percentages in parentheses where appropriate. Percentages without numbers are never adequate. Enough information must be provided so that the reader will know what was done. The Journal attempts to be certain that all authors submitting a paper have participated in the study by having them sign the disclosure statement, "The authors of this study confirm that each has contributed significantly to the formulation and execution of the study and the writing of the paper. The authors further confirm that they have read and concur in the writing and conclusion of the typescript, data, and illustrations submitted therein." Some of the startling instances of fraud in the recent decade have occurred in the laboratories of renowned investigators in which it appears that the famed author provided long-distance supervision and was so distant from the study as to not know the details of studies conducted in their own laboratories or clinics. Editors learn that some established investigators submit material that they have not read. Some individuals apparently permit their name to be attached to typescripts so that the editor, and not themselves will bear the onus of rejection. Contributors sometimes request that their papers not be reviewed by particular authorities and the editor of The Journal complies. Conversely some authors have channeled suggestions through members of the editorial board that the authors are so distinguished that outside review (or even editorial correction) is not required. Scientific referees are essential to the peer review process. In a field that encompasses as many different disciplines as ophthalmology, no individual can be familiar with all of its
Vol. 109, No.2
aspects. The reader has a right to assume that the articles are medically and scientifically sound and have been reviewed by experts in the field. Authors should be assured that the decision to accept or reject does not reflect special interests. With the emphasis in the past decade upon fraud in publishing, all too often mention of peer review stimulates a discussion of fraud in science. This is a pity for the purpose of peer review is not to ferret out fraud. Indeed, there is usually no way in which the reviewer or editor can determine if a study is valid or fabricated. Purely and simply, the reviewer advises the editor, not the authors, concerning the suitability of material for publication. The contribution of the referee cannot be overestimated. In many instances the referee
Editorial
223
provides a more current or pertinent understanding of a topic than that given in the paper. Sometimes it is evident that more thought has gone into the review than into the original paper. Referees labor long and anonymously. Their only reward is that medicine and its publications are richer for the effort. Sometimes disappointed authors guess that a particular member of the editorial board is responsible for an unfavorable review or rejection of their typescript. Mainly their guesses are wrong. Many papers with favorable reviews are so technical or so distant from clinically applicable material that they are rejected by the editor. Other papers that have an initially unfavorable review may be accepted for publication after revision.
