Abstract
We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.
For my typical academic day, my morning ritual is set in stone. After walking the dog and a quick double espresso, I sit down at my computer to go through all the new emails. The morning email check is, in part, a procrastination tactic, but for me it is a nice way to transition into the day. Within those daily emails, there will be at least one request to review a manuscript. These requests come from journals spanning those that support the professional organizations I belong to, those that I frequently publish in, those that I have never published in, and other journals that I have never heard of. These requests may or may not relate to topics that fall within my fields of expertise. If these invitations were limited to one per day, the total number of peer-review requests would be 365 manuscripts per year. Unfortunately, given the demands of my real job and other peer-review obligations, I must decline many of these invitations. I always feel guilty because I fully understand the importance of peer review. However, with the number of journals continuing to rise, there are just not enough reviewers to carry the load. The National Science Foundation reported that the number of peer-reviewed manuscripts in science and engineering published in the United States in 2018 was 422,808, of which 48% were in the fields of health and biomedical sciences. 4
Although not perfect, the peer-review process is the accepted means to ensure the scientific integrity of published findings and to facilitate the advancement of medicine. Peer reviewers filter out research that was not done correctly or that duplicates prior work. Peer reviewers also provide an objective perspective to help the authors clarify and/or simplify the presentation of their research and, in turn, facilitate medical advancement. Peer review establishes legitimacy and a stamp of approval when an article is published, 2 a mechanism not in place for manuscripts that are uploaded to preprint servers. In the peer-review process, the review of a manuscript is typically overseen by a scientific editor. However, a scientific editor cannot do it alone. As previously stated in an editorial by Dr. Reider, “Editors know a little about a lot of things and a lot about very few.” 3 Therefore, scientific editors must rely on the perspectives of volunteer reviewers who are experts in the field. As an associate editor of the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), I heavily rely on peer reviewers to judge the clinical merit and scientific rigor of the study. I am extremely grateful for their help and insight.
A good review takes both thought and time. Reviewers are expected to provide a thoughtful analysis and unbiased critique and to act as a peer to provide new insights and perspectives to the authors. 1 For most journals, including AJSM, reviewers are unpaid. However, serving as a peer reviewer provides an academic service that has many benefits. What is published in the literature is essentially old news. Once a study is complete, it takes time for most investigators to write a manuscript and then see it through peer review to publication. Thus, a peer reviewer gets to see what is new before publication. Serving as a peer reviewer provides an opportunity to broaden one's horizons, to stimulate new ideas, and to hone one's manuscript writing skills, which is particularly valuable to young clinicians and scientists. Members of professional societies that serve as peer reviewers help ensure the quality of science supporting their specialty. If timely and constructive reviews are consistently performed, peer reviewing may also open the path to become a member of an editorial review board, which could help with academic advancement.
From an editor's perspective, there are several challenges with the peer-review process. For each manuscript, an objective set of reviewers with the appropriate expertise must be recruited, which can be particularly challenging for multidisciplinary projects. It is not expected that all reviewers of a manuscript have the expertise to evaluate all aspects of the study, although as editors, we strive to find a set of reviewers that have the expertise between them. For example, as an associate editor responsible for the biomechanical papers that are submitted to AJSM, I need reviewers that can rigorously evaluate biomechanical methods (eg, a motion capture expert) and determine the true merit of the study in advancing clinical practice (eg, a practicing clinician in the field). Another challenge is the increasing number of journals in our field that draw from the same reviewer base. The reviewer pool continues to be diluted and the number of review requests to established reviewers continues to increase. An additional challenge is the recruitment of reviewers for two-part manuscripts. Many reviewers will commit to review one but not two manuscripts. Despite these challenges, I try my best to get manuscripts processed as quickly as possible.
Given the number of peer-review requests one receives and an editor's desire for quality peer review, it is important to have a strategy in place to accept or reject a request. Also, given that a good review takes time, and that time is limited, I restrict my reviews to the journals that are associated with my specialty societies, and to those that I frequently publish in. These are the journals in which the manuscripts under review will most likely interest me, and where my reviews will have the greatest impact. It also provides service to the society to ensure that only rigorous science is published within the field. Furthermore, restricting reviews to the journals that one plans to publish in provides insight into what those journals are looking for and how to better package a future manuscript submission to optimize its review. There is no better way to learn to write a good scientific manuscript than to review of few of them. Although an editor hopes a potential reviewer will accept the request, it is fully understood that there are times when one is too busy even though one would like to do so. However, when declining, it is extremely helpful to the editors if one provides the names of junior clinicians and scientists that could do the review. Typically, junior reviewers are enthusiastic and provide fresh perspectives, and the referral may eventually help their advancement in an academic institution. Editors just need to know who they are. Suggesting junior reviewers will expand the reviewer database, which in turn will help off-load established reviewers as the pool of reviewers starts to expand.
I personally appreciate the efforts of all the reviewers who have contributed to the peer-review process for AJSM over the years. I understand that a constructive review takes a considerable amount of time and effort. Your critical reviews preserve the quality of the journal and provide valuable feedback to both the editors and authors. I thank you for your service and contributions. Please see the annual Thank You Reviewers list in this issue.