EDITORIAL

Peer review adds valueDavid L. Turpin, Editor-in-Chief

Seattle, Wash

If I could total up the hours our reviewers devote toreading and critically reviewing all the articles in asingle issue of the AJO-DO, I am certain that the

figure would send me running back to check my math.We send each original submission to 3 or 4 reviewers,most of whom spend between 1 and 5 hours on the task;some reviews are so thoughtful and thorough that I’mcertain they have spent even more time on it. Based ontheir comments, we reject about 50% of the manu-scripts submitted, and most of the rest are returned totheir authors for revision. In some cases, the authorsdemonstrate clearly that they have met the reviewers’concerns, but other revisions must go back to at least 1original reviewer for a second look. With approxi-mately 20 articles making up each issue, you can seehow the hours add up.

Surprising as it may seem, there are periodic at-tempts to shortcut the publication process by omittingthis all-important procedure. What reasons are there forchallenging this tradition of peer review and what arethe chances of the challenge succeeding?

Efforts to make this change are almost always basedon arguments of efficiency—the pressure to reducecosts and save time. Although this reasoning is easyenough to understand, what would be the real cost tothe reader, the researcher, and even the eventual deliv-ery of orthodontic treatment if peer review becameobsolete? To answer this question, it is appropriate tolook at how reviewers function and consider ways forimproving the process.

To start with, no one wants to spend valuable timereviewing a manuscript that does not conform to thejournal’s guidelines. It has been suggested that editorsshould reject poorly constructed papers before externalreview and give the author current guidelines on how towrite a research paper.1 Specific guidelines for theAJO-DO on our website (http://ajodo.com), and my edi-torials in the November and December 2006 issuesprovide additional interpretation.2,3 The InternationalCommittee of Medical Journal Editors also has helpfulresources as well as detailed sections on preparing manu-scripts and formatting references. (www.icmje.org).

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:133-40889-5406/$32.00Copyright © 2007 by the American Association of Orthodontists.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.003

Reviewers say that communication is more effective ifit is personalized, polite, and efficient. They prefer toreceive prior notice before a full paper is sent to them.Notification in the form of an abstract allows them tomake a quick and informed decision about their abilityto be effective. At the end of the review process,reviewers like to see the other reviewers’ commentsand even receive feedback from the editor about thequality of their own effort. Some form of feedback aidsboth personal and professional development. Our onlinesubmission and review system (www.ees.elsevier.com/ajodo) has allowed us to make great improvements inthese areas.

Retaining the services of the best reviewers requiressetting limits on how many times we call on them. Imake every attempt to limit requests to 1 review everyother month, or no more than 5 or 6 a year. Althoughmaterial incentives are not common, reviewers obvi-ously deserve to be recognized for their work. About350 reviewers complete at least 3 reviews for theAJO-DO in a 12-month period; we consider themmembers of our Editorial Review Board and publishtheir names in the Journal. However, at least 400 otherscomplete 1 or 2 reviews in that same period, and wecould not operate without all these volunteers. Weupdate the Editorial Review Board listing inJanuary and July, so it regularly reflects changes in thereviewers’ activity level.

As publishers shifted to online systems, thesubmission and review process seemed to speed upfor everyone. The change had obvious advantages forauthors and editors, but what about the lonely re-viewer? Many disliked the extra burden of printingthe manuscript, and returning comments electroni-cally was somewhat restrictive. Nearly all reviewersfor the AJO-DO have now accepted the inevitabilityof electronic management systems and have balancedthe advantage of greater efficiency with their priorcomfort levels.

Peer review is here to stay, and efforts to under-mine it should be rejected. But the process needscontinued support and can always be improved. Theattraction and retention of the best reviewers willimprove the process by providing consistent, timely,

and quality reviews. Facilitating high-quality re-

133

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsAugust 2007

134 Editorial

views entails asking reviewers to review only rele-vant papers and setting limits on the number oftimes they will be asked to review. Sharing reportsbetween reviewers will encourage constructive crit-icism, as well as ethical behavior. Every effortshould be made to inform the reviewers of the finaldecision, making them feel valued and providing amore personal experience. For researchers, peer re-view is the bedrock of scholarly publishing. For thelarger public, its function is often misunderstoodand unappreciated. When this becomes an issue,

publishers, editors, authors, and reviewers should

unite in defending the role of peer review in scien-tific publication.

REFERENCES

1. Mulligan A. Is peer review in crisis? Perspect Publishing2004;2:1-6. Available at: www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editors.editors/perspectives. Accessed on June 14, 2007.

2. Turpin DL. Policies rely on biomedical uniform requirements.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:561-2.

3. Turpin DL. Policies for biomedical journals address ethics, con-fidentiality, and corrections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

2006;130:693-5.