563883
research-article2014
DSTXXX10.1177/1932296814563883Journal of Diabetes Science and TechnologyHeinemann
Editorial
Reviewer: An Endangered Species?!
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2015, Vol. 9(2) 167–168 © 2014 Diabetes Technology Society Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1932296814563883 dst.sagepub.com
Lutz Heinemann, PhD Keywords journals, review process, reviewer, peer review A scientific journal (one that is worth this name) has a peerreview process in place. This means each manuscript submitted will be forwarded to at least 2 colleagues who have in-depth knowledge in the topic the manuscript is dealing with. In principle, the job of these 2 colleagues is to read the manuscript very carefully and help the authors to improve the readability of the manuscript by commenting in detail on its content, format, and so on. They can also make in a confidential way recommendation to the editor about the scientific credibility of the manuscript and if it should be accepted or not. It is the task of the editor to make a decision about acceptance of the manuscript for publication based on the reviews and his or her own reading of the manuscript. Most often this is a relatively easy task as both the reviewers and the editor like the manuscript and generate a more or less lengthy list of comments that the authors should take into account when revising their manuscript. However, in some cases life can become difficult; sometimes one reviewer argues strongly against the acceptance of a given paper while the other is a big fan of it. In such a case it is up to the editor to make a decision, well knowing that at least one of the 2 reviewers will be upset once they see the editor’s decision or publication of the manuscript in the journal. That’s why you as an editor end up having a lot of enemies after a while and not too many friends. . . . Be assured that we try to follow your recommendations about acceptance of a manuscript as closely as possible and that we as editors sometimes have discussions about what to do with a given paper. Each manuscript has its own story. However, this editorial deals with a serious other topic: The shortage of reviewers! You have to understand that acting as a reviewer means that you spend a considerable amount of time (usually in the range of some hours) in reading the manuscript and generating a more or less lengthy list of comments about all aspects of a given manuscript (these vary between 3 lines and several pages in reality). The bad news is you as a reviewer get no credit at all for this demanding job. It is part of the nature of the review process that the name of the reviewers is kept confidential (it is also for the safety of some reviewers . . .). Also, the reviewer does not receive any payment or any other form or reward for doing so; this is an academic task in its best sense. As an editor (and this is an editorial) it is your job to select the appropriate reviewers. However, in practice it is most often challenging (and time-consuming) to find reviewers at all. In view of the high workload that everybody has, whether
working in a hospital, an academic institution, or the industry, it is not a surprise that many colleagues refuse to do this job at all. Please keep in mind that some colleagues might be asked by more than one journal per week for such a favor. One issue in this respect is the tremendous increase in the number of journals in recent years, resulting in more publications and at the same time the need for more reviewers. I guess that I get at least 2 emails per day asking for the submission of a manuscript to a journal that I have never heard of. Whether this increase in the number of publications is associated with a higher number of scientifically sound papers might be discussed in another editorial. In practice this results in the fact that searching for reviewers quite often becomes a time-consuming task, in some bad cases this can require weeks or even months as some colleagues responded not rapidly (= within some days). I have not performed a systematic analysis, but my guess is that nowadays we have to ask 5 colleagues to end up with 2 who are willing to review a given manuscript. In some cases we have had to ask 10 or even more colleagues to find the 2 reviewers. There is also a clear correlation of the willingness to review a certain manuscript with the topic the manuscript is dealing with or the quality of the manuscript (the potential reviewer sees a copy of the abstract of the manuscript). Especially “modern” topics like use of the Internet for training of this or that or evaluation of blood glucose meter nr. 315 are not of interest for many colleagues (this is why I as an editor also refuse to start the review process in such cases at all). However, for the editor it is not always easy to differentiate between his or her own gut feeling/scientific view on a given manuscript and the relevance this might have for a certain area of research. In such cases to be on the safe side I tend to send out for review manuscripts that I’d have rejected right away otherwise. I reject manuscripts right away once I have the impression that they do not fit into the scope of our journal or when I have they disrespect our journal when the authors submit manuscripts dealing with the data obtained with 4 study subjects or without any data at all. In view of the sensitivity of reviewers about the time that Science & Co, Düsseldorf, Germany Corresponding Author: Lutz Heinemann, PhD, Science & Co, Kehler Str. 24, 40468 Düsseldorf, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from dst.sagepub.com at The University of Hong Kong Libraries on May 8, 2015
168
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 9(2)
they are willing and able to spend with a given review, I try not to bother the same colleagues over and over again and with too poor manuscripts. If I have done so, please accept my apologies. Our idea is to do 3 things: 1. Establish a database with all colleagues who are willing to act as reviewers along with the topics they regard themselves as experts in. Please inform us about your interest/topics. 2. Mention all reviewers at the end of a given year and thus provide them with at least some credit for their work. 3. Encourage and train young colleagues in the review business to guarantee our future. For me, a reviewer should have knowledge and interest in a given topic, but it must not be the ultimate leader in this area of research that does this job. The latter often has no time resources and is often not constructively criticizing the manuscript. If you have other ideas about how to improve the review process of JDST, please let us know.
In summary, the job of a reviewer needs more respect and encouragement also in the scientific world. If we want to keep the quality of JDST high and aim to further improve it, it is crucial that we have good reviewers; these things go hand in hand. Colleagues, in a sense this editorial is a call for action! We fully acknowledge the burden the review process means for each of you (please keep in mind we are doing this with each manuscript), but we need your help to avoid running into even deeper trouble than we are already in with a crucial aspect of our scientific work. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: LH hold shares in the Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany, and the Profil Institute for Clinical Research, San Diego, USA. LH is consultant for a range of companies that develop new diagnostic and therapeutic options for the treatment of diabetes.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Downloaded from dst.sagepub.com at The University of Hong Kong Libraries on May 8, 2015
research-article2014
DSTXXX10.1177/1932296814563883Journal of Diabetes Science and TechnologyHeinemann
Editorial
Reviewer: An Endangered Species?!
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 2015, Vol. 9(2) 167–168 © 2014 Diabetes Technology Society Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1932296814563883 dst.sagepub.com
Lutz Heinemann, PhD Keywords journals, review process, reviewer, peer review A scientific journal (one that is worth this name) has a peerreview process in place. This means each manuscript submitted will be forwarded to at least 2 colleagues who have in-depth knowledge in the topic the manuscript is dealing with. In principle, the job of these 2 colleagues is to read the manuscript very carefully and help the authors to improve the readability of the manuscript by commenting in detail on its content, format, and so on. They can also make in a confidential way recommendation to the editor about the scientific credibility of the manuscript and if it should be accepted or not. It is the task of the editor to make a decision about acceptance of the manuscript for publication based on the reviews and his or her own reading of the manuscript. Most often this is a relatively easy task as both the reviewers and the editor like the manuscript and generate a more or less lengthy list of comments that the authors should take into account when revising their manuscript. However, in some cases life can become difficult; sometimes one reviewer argues strongly against the acceptance of a given paper while the other is a big fan of it. In such a case it is up to the editor to make a decision, well knowing that at least one of the 2 reviewers will be upset once they see the editor’s decision or publication of the manuscript in the journal. That’s why you as an editor end up having a lot of enemies after a while and not too many friends. . . . Be assured that we try to follow your recommendations about acceptance of a manuscript as closely as possible and that we as editors sometimes have discussions about what to do with a given paper. Each manuscript has its own story. However, this editorial deals with a serious other topic: The shortage of reviewers! You have to understand that acting as a reviewer means that you spend a considerable amount of time (usually in the range of some hours) in reading the manuscript and generating a more or less lengthy list of comments about all aspects of a given manuscript (these vary between 3 lines and several pages in reality). The bad news is you as a reviewer get no credit at all for this demanding job. It is part of the nature of the review process that the name of the reviewers is kept confidential (it is also for the safety of some reviewers . . .). Also, the reviewer does not receive any payment or any other form or reward for doing so; this is an academic task in its best sense. As an editor (and this is an editorial) it is your job to select the appropriate reviewers. However, in practice it is most often challenging (and time-consuming) to find reviewers at all. In view of the high workload that everybody has, whether
working in a hospital, an academic institution, or the industry, it is not a surprise that many colleagues refuse to do this job at all. Please keep in mind that some colleagues might be asked by more than one journal per week for such a favor. One issue in this respect is the tremendous increase in the number of journals in recent years, resulting in more publications and at the same time the need for more reviewers. I guess that I get at least 2 emails per day asking for the submission of a manuscript to a journal that I have never heard of. Whether this increase in the number of publications is associated with a higher number of scientifically sound papers might be discussed in another editorial. In practice this results in the fact that searching for reviewers quite often becomes a time-consuming task, in some bad cases this can require weeks or even months as some colleagues responded not rapidly (= within some days). I have not performed a systematic analysis, but my guess is that nowadays we have to ask 5 colleagues to end up with 2 who are willing to review a given manuscript. In some cases we have had to ask 10 or even more colleagues to find the 2 reviewers. There is also a clear correlation of the willingness to review a certain manuscript with the topic the manuscript is dealing with or the quality of the manuscript (the potential reviewer sees a copy of the abstract of the manuscript). Especially “modern” topics like use of the Internet for training of this or that or evaluation of blood glucose meter nr. 315 are not of interest for many colleagues (this is why I as an editor also refuse to start the review process in such cases at all). However, for the editor it is not always easy to differentiate between his or her own gut feeling/scientific view on a given manuscript and the relevance this might have for a certain area of research. In such cases to be on the safe side I tend to send out for review manuscripts that I’d have rejected right away otherwise. I reject manuscripts right away once I have the impression that they do not fit into the scope of our journal or when I have they disrespect our journal when the authors submit manuscripts dealing with the data obtained with 4 study subjects or without any data at all. In view of the sensitivity of reviewers about the time that Science & Co, Düsseldorf, Germany Corresponding Author: Lutz Heinemann, PhD, Science & Co, Kehler Str. 24, 40468 Düsseldorf, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from dst.sagepub.com at The University of Hong Kong Libraries on May 8, 2015
168
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology 9(2)
they are willing and able to spend with a given review, I try not to bother the same colleagues over and over again and with too poor manuscripts. If I have done so, please accept my apologies. Our idea is to do 3 things: 1. Establish a database with all colleagues who are willing to act as reviewers along with the topics they regard themselves as experts in. Please inform us about your interest/topics. 2. Mention all reviewers at the end of a given year and thus provide them with at least some credit for their work. 3. Encourage and train young colleagues in the review business to guarantee our future. For me, a reviewer should have knowledge and interest in a given topic, but it must not be the ultimate leader in this area of research that does this job. The latter often has no time resources and is often not constructively criticizing the manuscript. If you have other ideas about how to improve the review process of JDST, please let us know.
In summary, the job of a reviewer needs more respect and encouragement also in the scientific world. If we want to keep the quality of JDST high and aim to further improve it, it is crucial that we have good reviewers; these things go hand in hand. Colleagues, in a sense this editorial is a call for action! We fully acknowledge the burden the review process means for each of you (please keep in mind we are doing this with each manuscript), but we need your help to avoid running into even deeper trouble than we are already in with a crucial aspect of our scientific work. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: LH hold shares in the Profil Institute for Metabolic Research, Neuss, Germany, and the Profil Institute for Clinical Research, San Diego, USA. LH is consultant for a range of companies that develop new diagnostic and therapeutic options for the treatment of diabetes.
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Downloaded from dst.sagepub.com at The University of Hong Kong Libraries on May 8, 2015
