Peer-review process: The core of a scientific journal’s quality

WHY IS PEER REVIEW SO RELEVANT?

Science (particularly in health care and medicine) is changing and advancing at a rapid speed. There is also a simultaneous need to communicate timely, correct, accurate, and relevant information to the stakeholders. How do we ensure that? The place of scientific publishing acquires a critical edge in the current scenario. How do we communicate accurately actionable information in a simple, straightforward manner that can be put into use in a safe and effective manner?

Richard Smith, the former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal, writes ‘Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems, but the least worst we have.’^[1]

WHAT IS A PEER REVIEW PROCESS?

It is an important process which allows the editors to decide the quality, standards, and importance of any work sent to a journal. It provides constructive criticism about the manuscript, thereby helping in the final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript. It helps editors determine whether the work is of good quality, high priority, and warrants publication in an unbiased manner.

HOW DOES THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS WORK?

The peer-review process depends on the quality of the reviewers, who are experts in their field. They volunteer their time and expertise. Usually, at least two reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request three or more reviewers. This may be required in situations where review by a statistician may be needed. In cases of strong disagreement among the reviewers, a referee may be appointed, and an additional review may be solicited.

Apart from lending the expertise, reviewers have significant responsibilities toward authors, editors, and readers, as detailed in the Council of Science Editors’ guidelines.^[2] They help the editors make the right decision. Peer reviewers play an important role in identifying misconduct, such as data fabrication, plagiarism, unethical practices, authorship issues, duplicate publication, and at times undeclared conflict of interest. They assess the quality of the manuscript and provide constructive feedback to the authors. They help bring about greater clarity and simplicity to the communication. A positive engagement by the authors with the reviewers’ comments and feedback always helps in shaping a better manuscript; this will always benefit the readers. Most authors eventually realize that the reviewers, contrary to initial impressions, are their ally in producing quality work.

The use of online manuscript management systems has ushered in an era of transparency regarding the entire peer review process. The use of such systems also ensures that the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are not revealed, thereby rendering the review process an unbiased, authentic, and truthful exercise.

WHAT VALUE DOES PEER REVIEW BRING TO THE JOURNAL?

The peer review process enhances the scientificity and the standards of the work submitted to a journal. By publishing quality papers, a journal can raise its standards; this in turn helps the reader, who gets to read quality papers, and the authors, who get to publish quality papers in a quality journal.

WHAT ARE THE PEER REVIEW POLICIES AT JISH AND ITS IMPACT?

When our authors communicate with us requesting to fast-track the review process, we always remind them that Journal of Integrated Standardized Homoeopathy (JISH), follows a stringent, double-blind, peer review process, in which the names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other. JISH is fortunate to have a vast, experienced, and diverse reviewer board comprising experts from across the globe. We cherish them and hold them in very high esteem. In the last 7 years of our publication, we have been able to ensure quality publication because of their efforts and support.

Heavy responsibility comes with necessary duties. Reviewers are not expected to be overtly critical and must employ civil language in their comments. A peer review is a time-bound process, and one must also empathize with the authors. A lengthy process or a long-delayed one often leads to the withdrawal of the manuscripts. Hence, a quick, time-bound, constructive critique of the manuscript will allow more clarity and ease to the authors for revising their manuscripts.

The aversion to the peer review process, especially by the young authors, will change when one sees it as a guidance and help to improve the quality of the manuscript and enhance the quality of their work. The necessary time taken for completing the process would not be seen as an obstacle but as an assistance.

IN THIS ISSUE

We bring to you some quality papers. We have an original research article which assesses the feasibility of homeopathic interventions for metabolic syndrome and demonstrates the efficacy of homoeopathic treatment in its management.^[3] We also have a systematic review on evaluating the quality of existing research studies on homoeopathic interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).^[4] We also have interesting case series on homoeopathic management of ovarian cysts and case reports on diverse clinical conditions managed with homoeopathy like acute bronchiolitis, migraine in a paediatric age group, cumulative irritant contact dermatitis and acute psychosis. We publish a book review of one of the most anticipated books in the field of Homoeopathy- ‘Principles and Practice of Homoeopathy Part 2: Advancing Frontiers’ written by Late Dr. M. L. Dhawale and Dr Kumar Dhawale. The homoeopathic profession has waited for 40 long years for this book; this review is written by a living legend in homoeopathy today, Dr Kishore Mehta. It is a must-read, as it gives insights into this path-breaking book.^[5]

In view of our quest for building a high-quality homoeopathic journal and the role of the peer review process in its development, I am reminded of the lines of the Grammy award-winning song, ‘Lean on Me’ by American singer and songwriter Bill Withers:

‘You just call on me, brother, when you need a hand

We all need somebody to lean on.’^[6]

A critical helping hand does go a long way in creating quality work. A robust peer review process adopted by a scientific journal is truly the core of a journal’s growth, success, and sustenance.