This issue celebrates Peer Review Week (yes, believe it or not, there’s a week dedicated to peer review!). As a member of the JAVMA and AJVR Scientific Review Board and frequent reviewer, I was invited to pen some thoughts about peer review.
In an age of misinformation, disinformation, predatory journals, and increasing scientific fraud, how do you trust what you read? What makes journals like JAVMA and AJVR believable? Who are the gatekeepers of truth (to the degree that it is possible)? Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had the time and know-how to evaluate, de novo, every paper we read to determine whether the methods used to generate the results were appropriate, the data were correctly analyzed, and the results were appropriately presented, and to decide whether the authors interpreted their findings correctly? Unfortunately, most of us have neither the time nor the expertise to be able to perform our own “peer review” of every paper we pick to read over lunch. Instead, we rely on 2 groups for quality control of the literature we consume: the editors and the reviewers. And, as the number of submissions to journals increases almost exponentially, reviewers are asked ever more frequently to help decide whether an article warrants publication.
Prepublication review is a largely thankless task. There are few, if any, financial rewards. The better and faster you are at reviewing, the more often you’re likely to get asked to review—an ironic spiral of “punishment for performance.” Yes, academicians are expected to review but get little credit for it from their institutions (although that is slowly changing). Reviewing a paper a week won’t get you tenure; publishing 5 papers per year will. And there’s the rub (to quote the Bard): we expect others to review our papers constructively and quickly but often find excuses (mostly, that we’re too busy) not to return the favor. So, why bother reviewing at all? I can only speak for myself when I list the reasons I review papers. I want to give back, support inquiry in our field, and protect the integrity of science itself.
First, there is the “reciprocity” factor: I am part of a research community that generates and consumes scientific information in an attempt to improve veterinary medicine (both personally and more generally). As I take, I give back. It’s like those communal “tiny libraries”: take a book, give a book. I expect or hope that others will provide constructive feedback on my work in a thoughtful and timely fashion, so I feel that I should help other authors get their ideas and findings published.
Then, there’s the “gatekeeping”: things that are clearly problematic should be kept out. For the things that have correctable or addressable problems, I can help the authors improve their work by highlighting my concerns and offering potential solutions. In doing so, both the authors and I become better scientists.
However, most readers of scientific literature are not interested in being “producers.” They don’t care about becoming a better scholar, writer, or scientist. For these colleagues, review might be a way to see what’s in the pipeline, what’s the next new idea. It’s a sneak preview. It’s also rather nice to have somebody ask you for advice—a gentle ego massage.
Yes, a good constructive review takes time. It requires knowledge of at least a part of the subject sufficient to detect proper or improper methodology, analyses, and interpretations. It’s important, however, to realize that you don’t need to be an expert in every facet of the paper; just like a chef in a restaurant doesn’t need to make every part of a great meal, a reviewer does not need to be able to assess every detail of a paper. You can pick and choose the parts you can evaluate (and state that up front). Maybe you can assess the clinical aspects of the study: did the authors perform the correct blood tests? Did they do a proper physical examination? Did they interpret the findings correctly? Maybe your interest lies in details of diagnostic imaging: were the images obtained and interpreted correctly? Maybe, like me, you are a sucker for biostatistics (okay, probably not that many of you!). Pick your slice of the manuscript pie and appraise it.
When I review, I read much more carefully and critically, looking for problems and concerns that the authors will need to address. Over the years, I’ve discovered that the more I review, the better a consumer of the published literature I become, because that critical approach becomes a habit I carry over into my everyday reading.
I also believe a good review is not a review of language, grammar, sentence structure, or word choice. That’s what a copy editor does. Unless a sentence or author sentiment is ambiguous or not understandable, it’s not about the minutiae. Focusing on the scientific merit makes review much more enjoyable and easier. Ask yourself: “Will my suggestion fundamentally change the findings or interpretation of the results, or is it merely stylistic?” If it doesn’t change the broad conclusions, I let it slide.
Peer Review Week is a chance to thank reviewers for their help with improving the quality of the flagship journal of the AVMA. But it’s bigger than that. Without them, our ability to access the latest research and knowledge would be inevitably pushed out on social media platforms, where unfiltered content on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and X would become the source of knowledge and debate. And we already know what that world looks like: great for entertainment, but not necessarily the foundation of reliable scientific discovery. So, are you willing to give review a go?
Respectfully,
Mark Rishniw BVSc, PhD, DACVIM
Adjunct Professor
Cornell University
