Open Access Peer-Reviewed
Editorial

Peer review

Avaliação por pares

Bruno Machado Fontes1

DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.20150001

In this issue of ABO (Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia) we formally acknowledge and express our gratitude to the voluntary hard and substantial work, commitment and proficiency of our peer reviewers. We could not thank them enough for their immense cooperation to our journal and, why not, visual sciences. That said, we could state that the essential impartiality and quality of scientific publishing is provided by peer reviewers( 1 - 7 ).

Peer review is defined as the "critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff" by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Journal’s editors may not have accurate expertise to provide complete and impartial reviews of all themes considered for publication. Reviewers are chosen based on their knowledge about a subject or subspecialty. Peer review aims to improve science writing and editing, and medical publications deeply rely on its quality. They help editors to decide whether to publish a manuscript and provide critical feedback aiming to raise the quality of the manuscript’s final version. Considering that a reviewer delay can potentially affect the career of younger colleagues, who are relying on a publication for promotion or tenure, reviewers work carries a "great power" and is associated to a huge responsibility( 8 , 9 ).

Properly conducted peer review offers a great chance to learn from others experience and improve quality and safety of health care with the best available scientific discoveries and proper analysis. Reviewers check for inconsistencies, biases, wrong methodology and frauds. Incorrect reviews may lead to erroneous editorial decisions and good science might be rejected for bad reasons (even manuscripts that later resulted in a Nobel Prize have been rejected for publication)( 9 ). On the other hand, imprecise, misleading and partial data can be printed and negatively impact our patients. Clinical decisions are affected based in published results, having a direct impact on patient care( 10 , 11 ).

There are no "formal training" programs for peer reviewers. Hence, although universally used, peer review is time-consuming, imperfect, largely subjective, present low reproducibility even under optimal research conditions and may fail to notice important deficiencies. Why does it happen? First of all, we have to state that medicine is very complex, and few (if any) outcome have a single sufficient and necessary cause. Besides that, many methodological biases (e.g.: sample selection, data extraction and analysis, statistical analysis, etc…) may affect decision making and lead to error. Also the competitiveness in research ("publish or perish") and limited grant funding opportunities may induce one to publish results from a single study into multiple (redundant) publications, plagiarize, fabricate or fraud scientific information( 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 ).

Reviewers are more likely to accept to evaluate a manuscript when the paper represents an opportunity to learn something new, its data is relevant and contribute to their area of expertise. A sense of professional duty, part of academic role and the reputation of the journal are also key factors. The most motivating incentives included free access to the journal, annual acknowledgement of reviewers published on the journal, feedback about the outcome of the manuscript submission and the quality of their reviews, and the appointment of the best reviewers to the journal’s editorial board. Lack of time is the major factor in the decision to decline. Others reasons include conflict of interests and a tight deadline to complete the review( 3 ).

Receiving adequate peer review for manuscripts is really a great challenge, can affect quality and result in publication delay. Most skilled reviewers are those with a respectable track record of own publications in high-quality periodicals, expertise in epidemiology or statistics, current involvement in research, affiliation to a University hospital and several reviewer contributions( 8 ). It is not easy to find! The exponential growth of manuscripts submitted for publication overburdens the capability of available qualified referees and challenges the maintenance of quality on their evaluations and respect timelines( 7 ).

We have the privilege of counting with the contribution of world renowned specialists, who makes valuable revisions. We strongly support this formal recognition of their contribution and respectfully express our thankfulness for sharing your valuable time with ABO and its readers.

REVIEWER FULL NAME
Abrahão Lucena Emilio Dodds
Adem Turk Emmerson Badaro
Afsun Sahin Eneas Bezerra Gouveia
Alexandre Ventura Enyr Saran Arcieri
Alfredo Andrade Enzo Fulco
Aline C. F. Lui Eric Andrade
Alparslan Sahin Esin Sögütlü Sari
Altan Goktas Evandro Lucena
Amelia Fernandes Nunes Fabiana Valera
Amelia Kamegasawa Fabiano Cade
Ana Catarina Delgado Souza Fabio Casanova
Ana Laura Moura Fabio Ejzenbaum
Ana Luisa Lima-Farah Fabio Henrique Ferraz
Ana Tereza Moreira Fabio Jose Mariotoni Bronzatto
Andre Messias Fabio Kanadani
Andre Romano Fabiola Murta
Andrea Zin Fabricio Fonseca
Andrew Eiseman Fausto Uno
Antonio Augusto Velasco Cruz Fernando Chahud
Antonio Macho Fernando Orefice
Antonio Marcelo Casella Fernando Procianoy
Aylin Kilig Fernando Trindade
Ayrton Ramos Fernando Zanetti
Bruna Lana Ducca Flavia Augusta Attie de Castro
Bruna V Ventura Flavio Hirai
Bruno Diniz Flavio Maccord
Caio Regatieri Flavio Paranhos
Cari Perez-Vives Flavio Rocha
Carlos Arce Francisco Irochima
Carlos Augusto Moreira Jr. Francisco Max Damico
Carlos Eduardo Leite Arieta Frederico Guerra
Carlos Roberto Neufeld Guilherme Castela
Carolina Gracitelli Gustavo Amorim Novais
Carolina Maria Modulo Gustavo Bonfadini
Caroline Amaral Ferraz Gustavo Viani Arruda
Celia Simoes Cardoso de Oliveira Sathler Gustavo Victor
Celso Morita Harley E. A. Bicas
Christiane Rolim de Moura Helio Angotti-Neto
Cigdem Akdag Helio Shiroma
Cintia de Paiva Heloisa Andrade Maestrini
Clovis Arcoverde Freitas Heloisa Nascimento
Dacio Costa Huseyin Bayramlar
Daniel Cecchetti Ines Lains
Daniel Lavinsky luuki Takasaka
Daniel Meira-Freitas Jack Shao
Daniel Vasconcellos Jackson Barreto Jr.
Daniel Wasilewski Jair Giampani Junior
Davi Araf Jarbas Castro
David Guyton Jern Yee Chen
David Smadja Jim Schwiegerling
Denise Fornazari de Oliveira Joana Ferreira
Dora Ventura Joao Antonio Prata Jr
Eduardo Alonso Garcia Joao Borges Fortes Filho
Eduardo Amorim Novais Joao Carlos Miranda Goncalves
Eduardo Cunha Souza Joao Crispim
Eduardo Dib Joao Luiz Lobo Ferreira
Eduardo Franga Damasceno Joao Marcello Furtado
Eduardo Marback Joao Marcelo Lyra
Eduardo Rodrigues Joao Paulo Fernandes Felix
Elcio H Sato Jonathan Lake
Elisabeth Nogueira Martins Jorge Mitre
Elizabeth Lin Jose Aparecido da Silva
Jose Augusto Cardillo Moacyr Pezati Rigueiro
Jose Beniz Monica Alves
Jose Luiz Laus Monica Cronemberger
Jose Paulo Vasconcellos Monica de Andrade Morraye
Juliana Sallum Moyses Zajdenweber
Katharina Messias Muhammet Kazim Erol
Katia Bottos Murat Gunay
Katia dos Santos Murilo Abud
Keila Monteiro de Carvalho Myrna Santos
Kenzo Hokazono Nelson Sabrosa
Kimble Matos Newton Kara-Junior
Larissa Coppini Osman Cekic
Laurentino Biccas Pablo Chiaradia
Leandro Cabral Zacharias Patricia Akaishi
Leonardo Hueb Patricia Novita
Leonardo Provetti Cunha Patrick Frensel Tzelikis
Liang Shih Jung Paula Delegrego Borba
Ligia Fendi Paula Yuri Sacai
Liliane Andrade Almeida Kanecadan Paulo Fadel
Lisa B. Arbisser Paulo Pierre
Lisandro Sakata Paulo Schor
Lucas Vianna Paulo Sergio de Moraes Barros
Luciana Castro Lavigne Pedro Carricondo
Luciano Simao Peter Mc Gannon
Luciene Fernandes Peter Reinach
Luis Brenner Philipp Albrecht
Luis Eduardo Rebougas de Carvalho Priscila Novaes
Luis Nominato Priscilla Ballalai Bordon
Luiz Felipe Lynch Rafael Furlanetto
Luiz Guilherme Freitas Ramon Coral Ghanem
Luiz Hagemann Remzi Karadag
Luiz Henrique Lima Renata Portella
Luiz Teixeira Renato Damasceno
Luiz Vieira Ricardo Paletta Guedes
M Cristina Nishiwaki Dantas Ricardo Salles Cauduro
Manuel Zegarra Ricardo Suzuki
Marcella Salomão Richard Hida
Marcelo Casella Robert Montes-Mico
Marcelo da Costa Roberta Costa
Marcelo F. Gaal Vadas Roberto Galvao-Filho
Marcelo Hatanaka Roberto Marback
Marcelo Jordao Silva Roberto Pinto Coelho
Marcelo Palis Ventura Rodrigo Brant Fernandes
Marcelo Silva Rodrigo Calado
Marcia Beatriz Tartarella Rodrigo Espindola
Marcia Motono Rodrigo Jorge
Marcio Mendes Rony Carlos Preti
Marco Bonini Rosane Ferreira
Marcony Santhiago Rubens Neto
Maria Antonia Saornil Rubens Siqueira
Maria de Lourdes Motta Moreira Villas Boas Rui Schimiti
Maria Emilia Xavier dos Santos Araujo Rupal Trivedi
Maria Haddad Saban Gonul
Maria Kiyoko Oyamada Sebastiao Cronemberger
Maria Regina Chalita Sergio Burnier
Mariluze Sardinha Sergio Kwitko
Mario Junqueira Nóbrega Seydi Okumus
Marlon Moraes Ibrahim Seyhan Dikci
Marta Halfeld Ferrari Alves Lacordia Sheau Huang
Martin Berra Sidney Faria e Sousa
Mauricio Abujamra Nascimento Simone Haber Duellberg Von Faber Bison
Mauricio Bastos Pereira Solange Salomão
Mauricio Maia Somaia Mitne
Mauro Silveira de Queiroz Campos Tammy H Osaki
Mauro Waiswol Tiago Arantes
Mirella Gualtieri Tiago Cavalcanti
Tiago Santos Prata Virginia Laura Lucas Torres
Tuba Celik Vital Costa
Tuncay Kusbeci Walter Bloise
Ugur Acar Wener Cella
Vanessa Gerente Wesley Ribeiro Campos
Vera Regina Cardoso Castanheira William Mieler
Vinicius Ghanem Wilson Takashi Hida
Viral Juthani Yasin Cinar
Virgilio Centurion Zelia M Correa

REFERENCES

Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014;26;12(1):179.

Kadar N. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):596-601.

Tite L, Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(1):9-12.

Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2784-6.

Székely T, Krüger O, Krause ET. Errors in science: the role of reviewers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29(7):371-3.

Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, Yu LM, Cook J, Shanyinde M, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.

Gasparyan AY. Peer review in scholarly biomedical journals: a few things that make a big difference. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28(7):970-1.

Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53(4):386-9.

Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):958-64.

Moylan EC, Harold S, O'Neill C, Kowalczuk MK. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer? BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014;15:55.

Kara-Junior N. Medicina baseada em evidências. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2014;73(1):5-6.

Submitted for publication: December 13, 2014.
Accepted for publication: December 15, 2014.


Dimension

© 2024 - All rights reserved - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia