International Orthopaedics is 4O years old!

“…Although the majority of referees did not have a formal training in the 'art of reviewing' they still continue to selfishly contribute their time and effort in making sure that more quality research reaches its target audience. This work and commitment is wellappreciated by "International Orthopaedics" and all the scientific community [10]. Every year our valuable reviewers are acknowledged in a special list published as Open Access in the February issue and this is a modest tribute that we can offer to a beautiful and meaningful group of individuals that progress in scientific endeavours.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Reviews, reviewers and reviewing

Zazgyva

Kon

Mauffrey

et al. 2016

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

" button we may recall some points, as Kotsis and Chung revealed in their very useful quick guide on reviewing [4,5]. Namely, questioning if your individual experience is appropriate for serving as a referee for the paper proposed and you can provide a timely and unbiased opinion. If you feel qualified to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and can do so in the required time, without conflicts of interest, you may accept the request and do your best to deliver a thoughtful and thorough review. But then, what next? Depending on how busy and/or organized you are, you might start thinking about that review assignment right away or perhaps a few days later. You should bear in mind that a proper, carefully prepared review might take up quite a lot of your time, so plan ahead to be able to dedicate a few hours for the work. The current 'push system' of review where the editor assigns a reviewer without having an insight into the reviewers time constraints may need to be modified to a 'pull system' where the reviewer shows his availability and willingness to review a manuscript at a specific time point. This revolution would require a drastic modification of the culture, computer systems and workflow currently in place. In addition, it is possible that the good reviewers may never be available to flag their desire to perform a review [6]. Now you face the next question: what makes a good review?Although not perfect, peer review is still at the heart of scientific quality control, and is a way for each of us to

show abstract

“…Although the scientific quality of a paper or of a journal is not uniquely based on citation metrics, the more a paper (or journal) is cited reflects the overall impact of the paper and journal on the scientific community [1,2]. However, not all published papers are cited; some are cited early after publication, while others are cited late (usually within 2-5 years) and some never.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%