The editor endeavours, aims and standards in a surgery journal: our experience with “International Orthopaedics” and the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie publications

Mavrogenis, Andreas F.; Scarlat, Marius M.

doi:10.1007/s00264-022-05424-y

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional challenges are the limited formal training and assessment methods for review compared to other research topics. Moreover, the evaluation of peer reviewers is difficult and incorporates a lot of biases related to authors' and reviewers' gender, nationality, native language, and personal and institutional preferences [6,21,22]. Specific criticisms associated with peer reviewers include difficulty in identifying the appropriate peers to serve as qualified reviewers, suffering bias and conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers, tolerating inconsistent results, and being slow and expensive.…”

Section: The Best Peer Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A large number of papers are immediately rejected as being out of the scope of the journal or with a limited interest for the readers of the journal. The high number of submissions places a substantial strain on publishers, editors, and reviewers, creating a challenging problem of balance between the interests of our authors and readers, and the quality standards growth [22].…”

Section: Reviewing For International Orthopaedicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals: ethical constraints, computers, and progress of communication with the reviewers of International Orthopaedics

Mavrogenis

Scarlat

2023

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research integrity is the cornerstone of academic medicine. The basic principles of research integrity are ethical writing, honest authorship, and formal peer review [1,2]. Peer review is the academic evaluation of scholarship by scientists in the same field (peers) that aim to ensure scientifically valid and ethical research [3,4]. The principles of peer review are largely based on professionalism and academic attitude. Although peer review has been considered the standard to evaluate research, it has problems, bias, flaws, and limitations that should be addressed and optimized [5]. Currently, in the demand for abundant publications on researchers, it may be easy to get attracted by predatory journals inviting to submit a paper in the gold open access route that requires the author to pay a fee if the paper is published. In this publication factory, the journals will publish almost anything for a fee, with a short or without a peer review; therefore, effortless and useless publications will be increasing. Other journals have notorious high rejection rates. Although the high number of submissions justifies a high rejection rate, this reflects another bias of the peer-review process; the reviewers are encouraged to reject manuscripts in most cases in order to preserve this quality measure, and solely manuscripts that find favour within the reviewers get published [5][6][7][8].Peer review is considered a biased process with identified defects; it is a compromise between the likelihood of accepting a bad paper (type I error) and the likelihood of rejecting a good paper (type II error). Although peer review is supposed to reduce type I errors, it also increases the chances of a type II error. Minimizing the likelihood of a type I error will * Marius M. Scarlat

show abstract

Section: The Best Peer Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reviewing For International Orthopaedicsmentioning

confidence: 99%