© 2003 American Thoracic Society
Peer Review and Manuscript TriageTo the Editor:Dr. Hoppin has performed a great service to the scientific community by writing his article (1). He makes the point that a good review cannot be completed in 3 hours – especially when there are significant issues to address. I wonder if this problem could be helped in part by more prescreening by journal editors. For example, the "n = 10" studies that merit publication only in abstract form, the obvious "fishing expeditions," and those written in poor English could be sent back for revision prior to submission to reviewers for detailed technical review. Also, if more reviewers were selected per submission, guidance could be provided as to which specific areas each reviewer should pay closer attention. Speaking personally, time constraints are the major reason for which I decline a reviewing opportunity.
New Jersey School of Medicine Newark, New Jersey REFERENCES
From the Authors: Peer review sets standards for publication, and can substantially improve the science and clarity of submitted articles (1). These goals are compromised when scientists refuse invitations or conduct hasty reviews because of the attendant time. Dr. Druce's letter, above, offers two suggestions that might ease that burden. Each has merits, but must be balanced against other considerations.
Other possible approaches fall logically into two categories–although I do not find them particularly promising:
Brown University Pawtucket, Rhode Island REFERENCES
From the Editor: Dr. Druce agrees with Dr. Hoppin (1) that a worthwhile review of a manuscript requires a considerable expenditure of time. Dr. Druce asks whether journals might not improve the efficiency of peer-review by declining a greater fraction of manuscripts without sending them out to experts for assessment. At AJRCCM, we believe that a scientific journal represents a great deal more than the articles published within its covers (2, 3). We try to provide a service to authors even when we do not accept their manuscript for publication; we hope that feedback on rejected manuscripts influences the quality of research in pulmonary and critical care medicine. Since September 1999, when the current editorial team began its term, we have received over 6,500 manuscripts and more than 98% were entered into peer review. It is true that many journals reject a considerable fraction of manuscript without peer review. For example, The Lancet rejects about 70% of manuscripts without external review (4). The Journal of Clinical Investigation rejects 25% or more of manuscripts without formal assessment (5). Editors who reject a high fraction of manuscripts without peer review give two justifications for their action. One, a rapid rejection enables authors to rapidly submit their manuscript to another journal. Two, the editors wish to expedite the processing of manuscripts that appear more meritorious (4). Rapid rejection certainly shortens the time for submission to another journal. Nevertheless, all manuscripts submitted to AJRCCM undergo complete peer review within 30.3 days (median), and accepted manuscripts are published on our website within one week of acceptance. AJRCCM interprets the term "peer-reviewed journal" to mean that decisions on submitted manuscripts are almost invariably based on assessments by fellow experts in a research field. I recall several instances where I judged a manuscript to have minimal merit on an initial superficial reading. After receiving favorable critiques from the reviewers, however, I changed my mind and a revised version of the manuscript was published in the Journal. It is possible for AJRCCM to provide detailed critiques on virtually all submissions only because more than 6,000 individuals in our Web-based database express willingness to selflessly donate time and expertise to this task.
REFERENCES
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
