Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2022
01 01 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
21
1
2022
entrez:
25
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The gold standard of safe-guarding the quality of published science is peer review. However, this long-standing system has not evolved in today's digital world, where there has been an explosion in the number of publications and surgical journals. A journal's quality depends not only on the quality of papers submitted but is reflected upon the quality of its peer review process. Over the past decade journals are experiencing a rapidly escalating "peer review crisis" with editors struggling in recruiting reliable reviewers who will provide their skilled work for free with ever-diminishing incentives within today's restricted time-constraints. The problem is complex and difficult to solve, but more urgent than ever. Time is valuable and academicians, researchers and clinicians are overburdened and already extremely busy publishing their own research along with their ever growing clinical and administrative duties. Fewer and fewer individuals volunteer to provide their skilled work for free which is expected. The current incentives to review do not have a big impact on one's career and therefore are not realistic effective countermeasures. As the limits of the system are constantly stretched, there will inevitably come a "point of no return" and Surgical Journals will be the ones to first take the hit as there is an overwhelming evidence of burnout in the surgical specialties and the Surgical community is almost 50% smaller than its Medical counterpart. This review identifies the potential causes of the peer-review crisis, outlines the incentives and drawbacks of being a reviewer, summarizes the currently established common practices of rewarding reviewers and the existing and potential solutions to the problem. The magnitude of the problem and unsustainability that will make it perish are discussed along with its current flaws. Finally, recommendations are made to address many of the weaknesses of the system with the hope to revive it.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33630457
pii: 00000658-202201000-00044
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004756
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e82-e90Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Sherma H. The birth of modern peer review. Scientific American 2014; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/
Ferraris VA. Burdens without blessings: peer reviewers get no respect. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 153:1615–1617.
Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, et al. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30:360–364.
Fox J, Petchey OL. Pubcreds: fixing the peer review process by “privatizing” the reviewer commons. Bull Ecol Soc Am 2010; 91:325–333.
Henderson S, Berk M, Boyce P, et al. Finding reviewers: a crisis for journals and their authors. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2020; 54:957–959.
Vesper I. Peer reviewers unmasked: largest global survey reveals trends. Nature 2018.
Fernandez-Llimos F. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2019; 17:1502.
Grinker RR, Besnier N. Peer review and academic citizenship: a call to our colleagues. Anthropology News 2016; 57:e74–e77.
Balch CM, Shanafelt TD, Sloan JA, et al. Distress and career satisfaction among 14 surgical specialties, comparing academic and private practice settings. Ann Surg 2011; 254:558–568.
Peckham C. Medscape Physician Lifestyle Report 2015 2015. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/lifestyle/2015/public/overview . Accessed December 13, 2020
Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps G, et al. Burnout and medical errors among American surgeons. Ann Surg 2010; 251:995–1000.
Shanafelt TD, Balch CM, Bechamps GJ, et al. Burnout and career satisfaction among American surgeons. Ann Surg 2009; 250:463–471.
Khan A, Teoh KR, Islam S, et al. Psychosocial work characteristics, burnout, psychological morbidity symptoms and early retirement intentions: a cross-sectional study of NHS consultants in the UK. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e018720.
Surgeons ACo. American College of Surgeons Member Services: Join the American College of Surgeons 2020. Available at: https://www.facs.org/Member-Services/Join#:∼:text=With%20more%20than%2082%2C000%20members,surgical%20organization%20in%20the%20world . Accessed December 14, 2020
Physicians ACo. ABOUT ACP: WHO WE ARE 2020. Available at: https://www.acponline.org/about-acp/who-we-are . Accessed December 14, 2020
Surgeons RCo. Membership 2020. Available at: https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/about-the-rcs/membership/ . Accessed December 14, 2020
Physicians RCo. Join the RCP 2020. Available at: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/join#:∼:text=With%20a%20500%2Dyear%20history,you%20throughout%20your%20medical%20career . Accessed December 14, 2020
Bennett RC. Peer review - an editor's perspective. Vet Anaesth Analg 2019; 46:257–259.
UNESCO. Science Report 2015 2015. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/node/252277 . Accessed 24 October 2020
Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, et al. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PloS One 2016; 11:e0166387–e1166387.
Ellwanger JH, Chies JAB. We need to talk about peer-review-experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 125:201–205.
Zaharie MA, Seeber M. Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics 2018; 117:1587–1609.
Van Noorden R. Hundreds of scientists have peer-reviewed for predatory journals. Nature 2020; https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00709-x
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00709-x
Fox CW, Albert AYK, Vines TH. Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution. Res Integr Peer Rev 2017; 2:3–13.
Warne V. Rewarding reviewers–sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing 2016; 29:41–50.
Publons. 2018 Global State of Peer Review. 2018. https://publons.com/community/gspr . Accessed October 10, 2020.
Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007; 61:9–12.
Berquist TH. Reviewer assistance: critical updates in personal classification terms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018; 211:469.
Bianchi F, Grimaldo F, Bravo G, et al. The peer review game: an agent-based model of scientists facing resource constraints and institutional pressures. Scientometrics 2018; 116:1401–1420.
Bearer CF, Chalak L, Fuentes-Afflick E, et al. The rewards of peer-reviewing. Pediatr Res 2020; 87:2.
Diamandis EP. The current peer review system is unsustainable-awaken the paid reviewer force!. Clin Biochem 2017; 50:461–463.
Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2019; 29:020201.
Kreiman J. On peer review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59:480–483.
Schiermeier Q. Peer review: close inspection. Nature 2016; 533:279–281.
Le Bailly B. Learning from peer review. Nat Nanotechnol 2016; 11:204.
Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. The STM Report: An overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing. 5th ed.Hague, The Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2018.
Diamandis EP. Publishing costs: peer review as a business transaction. Nature 2015; 517:145.
Acknowledgement to reviewers 2018-2019. Injury. 2020; 51:125–129.
JBJS Elite Reviewers Program 2020. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Pages/Elite-Reviewers-Program.aspx . Accessed October 17, 2020
Thanks to Our Reviewers. J Trauma Acute Care Surg . 2018;84:548.
Coupal TM, Munk PL, Lapeña JFF Jr, et al. Retaining and rewarding journal peer reviewers. Can Assoc Radiol J 2018; 69:346–348.
Cusick A. Peer review: least-worst approach or the very best we can do? Aust Occup Ther J 2016; 63:1–4.
Ilgen JS, Artino AR Jr, Simpson D, et al. Group peer review: the breakfast of champions. J Grad Med Educ 2016; 8:646–649.
Swiontkowski M. Publons: the next step in reviewer recognition. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101:1137.
Maffia P. Why we should reward peer reviewers. Cardiovasc Res 2018; 114:e30–e31.
Leopold SS. Editorial: ORCID is a wonderful (but not required) tool for authors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474:1083–1085.
Dupps WJ Jr. Peer review: get involved. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43:997–998.
Leroux JC. The illusion and disillusion of peer review. ACS Nano 2019; 13:9696–9697.
List B. Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast. Nature 2017; 546:9.
Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM, Tonin FS. How many manuscripts should I peer review per year? Pharm Pract (Granada) 2020; 18:1804.
Yates BJ. The “new realities” of peer review. J Neurophysiol 2017; 117:869–871.
Hochberg ME, Chase JM, Gotelli NJ, et al. The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecol Lett 2009; 12:2–4.
Petchey OL, Fox JW, Haddon L. Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010. PLoS One 2014; 9:e92896.
Heaven D. AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind. Nature 2018; 563:609–610.
Publons. Our New Index Reveals Who is Doing all the Peer Review. 2017. Available at: https://publons.com/blog/spread-of-peer-review-workload/ . Accessed October 24, 2020
Gallo SA, Sullivan JH, Glisson SR. The influence of peer reviewer expertise on the evaluation of research funding applications. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0165147.
Oehrlein EM, Graff JS, Perfetto EM, et al. PEER-reviewed journal editors’ views on real-world evidence. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2018; 34:111–119.
Bianchi F, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F. The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals. J Informetrics 2019; 13:78–86.
Chichester M, Wool J. Before journal submission, build your own peer review board. Nurs Womens Health 2017; 21:137–141.
Leibovici L. Immediate rejection of manuscripts without peer review at the CMI. Clin Microbiol Infect 2017; 23:499.
Casado M. Engage more early-career scientists as peer reviewers. Nature 2018; 560:307.
Walker TR. Help graduate students to become good peer reviewers. Nature 2018; 561:177.
Berquist TH. Our reviewer pool: what are the opportunities? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 212:481–482.
Rogers RG. Mentored Reviews: Maintaining the Transparency and Confidentiality of Peer Review. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016; 22:291doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000317.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000317
Thomas SP. Current controversies regarding peer review in scholarly journals. Issues Ment Health Nurs 2018; 39:99–101.
Monsivais D, Robbins LK. Mentoring the next generation of peer reviewers: a triple win. Can J Nurs Res 2017; 49:139–141.
Keating NL, Mohile SG. Increasing engagement in peer review. J Geriatr Oncol 2019; 10:526–527.
Black N, Van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998; 280:231–233.
McDowell GS, Knutsen JD, Graham JM, et al. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. eLife 2019; 8:e48425.
Jubb M. Peer review: the current landscape and future trends. Learned Publishing 2016; 29:13–21.
Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008; 101:507–514.
Picciotto M. Peer review week: quality in peer review. J Neurosci 2019; 39:7452.
Publishing W. Wiley Reviewer Academy. Available at: http://news.wiley.com/revieweracademy . Accessed October 10, 2020
Citrome L. Rewarding reviewers, part I: contributing an editorial. Int J Clin Pract 2018; 72:e13210.
Kubke F. What I learned as an Academic Editor for PLoS One. 2012.
Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:16569–16572.
Cantor M, Gero S. The missing metric: quantifying contributions of reviewers. R Soc Open Sci 2015; 2:140540.
Cintas P. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2016; 363:1–4.
Kachewar SG, Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: a new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monogr 2013; 11:274–284.
Paoletti E. A reviewer factor (RF) for finding and retaining good reviewers. Update 2009; 28:5–6.
Kumar MN. The ‘peer reviewer as collaborator’ model for publishing. Learned Publishing 2010; 23:17–22.
Schmidt B, Ross-Hellauer T, van Edig X, et al. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Res 2018; 7:969.
Ellaway R, Tolsgaard M, Norman G. Peer review is not a lottery: AHSE's fast track. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2020; 25:519–521.
Charlier P, Al-Chaer ED, Bou Abdallah F, et al. Peer (and brothers) review? Ethical challenges in author-proposed peer-reviewers. Eur J Intern Med 2018; 47:e24–e25.
Murphy EJ. The importance of ethical peer-review: why do we ask authors to suggest reviewers anyway? Lipids 2015; 50:1165–1166.
Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci 2019; 34:e6.
Shopovski J, Bolek C, Bolek M. Characteristics of peer review reports: editor-suggested versus author-suggested reviewers. Sci Eng Ethics 2020; 26:709–726.
Fisher D, Parisis N. Social influence and peer review: why traditional peer review is no longer adapted, and how it should evolve. EMBO Rep 2015; 16:1588–1591.
Kwon D. How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature 2020; 581:130–131.
Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons–an evolution or commodification of peer review? Research Ethics 2019; 15:1–11.
Network RI. Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK. Res Inf Netw 2008; https://serials.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/21194/galley/968/download/
Garg PK. Financial incentives to reviewers: double-edged sword. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30:832.
Ferreira C, Bastille-Rousseau G, Bennett AM, et al. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2016; 91:597–610.
Humphreys H. Obligations of academia in peer review. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2019; 49:262–263.
Sonne C, Alstrup AKO. Discussion: peer-review under siege. Sci Total Environ 2019; 651 (Pt 1):1180–1181.
Landhuis E. Scientific literature: information overload. Nature 2016; 535:457–458.
Medicine NLo. Citations Added to MEDLINE® by Fiscal Year 2020. Available at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/stats/cit_added.html . Accessed November 18, 2020
Medicine NLo. Detailed Indexing Statistics: 1965-2017 2020. Available at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/index_stats_comp.html . Accessed November 18, 2020
Messias AMV, Lira RPC, Furtado JMF, et al. How to evaluate and acknowledge a scientific journal peer reviewer: a proposed index to measure the performance of reviewers. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2017; 80:V.
Cintas P. Increasing visibility and recognition of reviewers–is a peer review index a possible solution. Elsevier Rev Updat 2010; 28:6–7.
DeVoss C. Artificial Intelligence Applications in Scientific Publishing. SpotOn Report. What Might Peer Review Look Like in 2017; 2030:5.
Feliciani T, Luo J, Ma L, et al. A scoping review of simulation models of peer review. Scientometrics 2019; 121:555–594.
Villar RR. Does peer review have a future? J Hip Preserv Surg 2019; 6:1–2.
Bell GP, Kvajo M. Tackling waste in publishing through portable peer review. BMC Biol 2018; 16:146.