The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Abstract

Peer-review is the core of the editorial process and the basis of the publication system. The quality of peer-review depends on the quality of the peer-reviewers. Peer reviewers are supposed to ensure that journals publish high-quality science by evaluating manuscripts and offering suggestions for improvement. Peer-reviewers are typically selected based on their expertise in the areas of research associated with the submitted manuscripts. Although being a peer-reviewer is sometimes frustrating, communication between authors, editors and reviewers in the peer-review process determines the eventual success of the publication; this communication should be formal, constructive, honest and polite [1, 2]. Specific standards of formal and ethical writing are necessary for peer-review. These standards should be maintained throughout the review process of any submitted paper in any particular journal. Peer-review is considered a biased process with identified defects [3-11]; some peer-reviewers are too young with limited experience, not all are equally skilled in the peer-review process, and very few have had a formal training and assessment methods for peer-review [1, 12, 13]. A growing body of quantitative evidence showed violations of objectivity and bias in the peer review process for reasons based on author attributes such as language, institutional affiliation, nationality, and others, authors' identity such as gender and sexuality, and reviewers' perceptions of the field such as territoriality within field, personal gripes with authors, scientific dogma, discontent/distrust of methodological advances [14, 15]. Occasionally, reviewers' comments are rude or unprofessional; in a study, more than half of 1106 anonymous respondents reported receiving at least one "unprofessional" review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments including comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or unnecessarily harsh or cruel [15]. This editorial note aims to communicate to the readers of the journal the unified set of rules for a good and bad peer-review, and to emphasize on the avoidance and consequences of a rude peer-review.

How fast is the peer-review process for orthopaedic publications related to the Covid-19 pandemic?

“…13 This process may be affected by some factors, especially those related to the reviewers, if they are young with less experience, lacking skills, and had no enough training on properly performing this process. 12 Gazendam et al found that the mean time from submission to publication was 13 ± 12 days (median 10 and range, 0e113 days), 14.9% of the articles were published within seven days of submission. 3 We reported nearly the same trend in orthopaedic publications related to Covid-19, where the mean time from submission to acceptance was 14.3 ± 15.8 days (median 9, the range was from 0 to 74), and 44% of the articles were accepted within the first week.…”

“…The essence of the rigorous peer-review process is to catch the misconduct and shortcomings of scientific articles before and not after it being published; it is considered as the foundation for the integrity of scientific findings in the medical field. 11 , 12 Although this process had been practiced by most of the medical journals over decades, however, the debate regarding the integrity and quality of this process still exists. 13 This process may be affected by some factors, especially those related to the reviewers, if they are young with less experience, lacking skills, and had no enough training on properly performing this process.…”

The virus crisis affects Orthopaedic surgery and scientific activities worldwide

“…We try to identify and warn the authors for this type of behaviour. Finding good reviewers in crisis is not easy, but it turned out to be less difficult compared to other occasions such as summer holidays; we were pleased to see that the journal's reviewers reply promptly and accept a review assignment, and return on time with a good and constructive review [10,11]. The editors and reviewers of the journal opt for quality publications to increase the impact of the journal and the visibility of the submitted/ published papers [12].…”

Useful and useless publications measured by bibliometrics and scientometrics in orthopaedic surgery. Are the relevance of a journal and publication metrics useful enough for the scientific promotion of surgeons?

“…Any submitted work is subjected to a demanding, constructive and objective process of peer-review which is still the best method to validate the quality of the accepted papers, although also flawed with biases [44]. In this regard, some journals have notorious high rejection rates [38,45].…”