Joshi ND, Deshpande KS, Roehmer CW, Vyas D. A slight glance at peer review. World J Surg Proced 2018; 8(1): 1-5 [DOI: 10.5412/wjsp.v8.i1.1]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Dinesh Vyas, MD, MSc, Professor, Surgeon, Department of Surgery, San Joaquin General Hospital, 500 W Hospital Rd, P.O. Box 1020, French Camp, CA 95231, United States. dvyas@sjgh.org
Research Domain of This Article
Surgery
Article-Type of This Article
Editorial
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Surg Proced. Nov 5, 2018; 8(1): 1-5 Published online Nov 5, 2018. doi: 10.5412/wjsp.v8.i1.1
A slight glance at peer review
Neil D Joshi, Kaivalya S Deshpande, Christian W Roehmer, Dinesh Vyas
Neil D Joshi, Kaivalya S Deshpande, Christian W Roehmer, Department of Surgery, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States
Dinesh Vyas, Department of Surgery, San Joaquin General Hospital, French Camp, CA 95231, United States
Author contributions: Joshi ND, Deshpande KS and Vyas D conceived the study and drafted the manuscript; Roehmer CW revised the work; all authors approved the final version of the article.
Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Dinesh Vyas, MD, MSc, Professor, Surgeon, Department of Surgery, San Joaquin General Hospital, 500 W Hospital Rd, P.O. Box 1020, French Camp, CA 95231, United States. dvyas@sjgh.org
Telephone: +1-209-4686620 Fax: +1-209-4686246
Received: July 23, 2018 Peer-review started: July 23, 2018 First decision: August 20, 2018 Revised: September 24, 2018 Accepted: October 19, 2018 Article in press: October 19, 2018 Published online: November 5, 2018 Processing time: 107 Days and 12.1 Hours
Abstract
In order to ensure that the highest quality of literature is published, most journals utilize a peer review process for manuscripts submitted. Although the primary purpose for this process is to filter out ”bad science”, the process is not perfect. While there is a general consensus among researchers and clinicians that something must be done to improve upon the method for properly vetting manuscripts, there are conflicting opinions on how to best implement new policies. In this paper, we discuss the most well-supported suggestions to improve the process, with the hopes of increasing rigor and reproducibility, ensuring double-blinding, developing set guidelines, offering early training to reviewers, and giving reviewers better feedback and recognition for their work.
Core tip: The peer review process lacks the proper transparency required to ensure adequate promotion of reproducibility and reliability, which are two core characteristics that peer-reviewed, published data should possess. It is important for researchers to re-evaluate the peer review process continuously in order to formulate up-to-date methods for improving transparency, thereby strengthening its credibility.
