Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 3/2020

01-03-2020 | Editorial

The good, the bad and the rude peer-review

Authors: Andreas F. Mavrogenis, Andrew Quaile, Marius M. Scarlat

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Excerpt

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. …
Literature
1.
Mavrogenis AF, Sun J, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2019) How to evaluate reviewers – the international orthopedics reviewers score (INOR-RS). Int Orthop 43(8):1773–1777CrossRef
2.
Quaile A, Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Mauffrey C (2019) International Orthopaedics – instructions for authors, English expression, style and rules. Int Orthop 43(11):2425–2427CrossRef
3.
4.
Link AM (1998) US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 280(3):246–247CrossRef
5.
Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N (2006) Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA 295(3):314–317CrossRef
6.
Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 99:178–182CrossRef
7.
Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS (2006) Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 4:13CrossRef
8.
Knobloch-Westerwick S, Glynn CJ (2013) The Matilda effect in science communication: an experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Sci Commun 35:603–625CrossRef
9.
Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR (2013) Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science. Nature 504(7479):211–213CrossRef
10.
Kowalczuk MK, Dudbridge F, Nanda S, Harriman SL, Patel J, Moylan EC (2015 Sep 29) Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open 5(9):e008707CrossRef
11.
Wren JD, Valencia A, Kelso J (2019) Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention. Bioinformatics. 35(18):3217–3218CrossRef
12.
van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R (1999) Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ. 318(7175):23–27CrossRef
13.
Messias AMV, Lira RPC, Furtado JMF, Paula JS, Rocha EM (2017) How to evaluate and acknowledge a scientific journal peer reviewer: a proposed index to measure the performance of reviewers. Arq Bras Oftalmol 80(6) V
14.
Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B (2013) Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(1):2–17CrossRef
15.
Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ. 7:e8247CrossRef
16.
Zazgyva A, Kon E, Mauffrey C, Mavrogenis AF, Scarlat MM (2017) Reviews, reviewers and reviewing. Int Orthop 41(1):1–2CrossRef
17.
Cowell HR (2000) Ethical responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 378:83–89CrossRef
18.
19.
20.
Leek JT, Taub MA, Pineda FJ (2011) Cooperation between referees and authors increases peerreview accuracy. PLOS ONE 6:e26895CrossRef
21.
Lewis NA Jr, Sekaquaptewa D (2016) Beyond test performance: a broader view of stereotype threat. Curr Opin Psychol 11:40–43CrossRef
22.
Spencer SJ, Logel C, Davies PG (2016) Stereotype threat. Annu Rev Psychol 67:415–437CrossRef
23.
Nguyen HHD, Ryan AM (2008) Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. J Appl Psychol 93:1314–1334CrossRef
24.
Burgess DJ, Warren J, Phelan S, Dovidio J, Van Ryn M (2010) Stereotype threat and health disparities: what medical educators and future physicians need to know. J Gen Intern Med 25:169–177CrossRef
25.
Krendl A, Gainsburg I, Ambady N (2012) The effects of stereotypes and observer pressure on athletic performance. J Sport Exerc Psychol 34:3–15CrossRef
26.
Lambert AE, Watson JM, Stefanucci JK, Ward N, Bakdash JZ, Strayer DL (2016) Stereotype threat impairs older adult driving. Appl Cogn Psychol 30:22–28CrossRef
27.
Gupta VK, Goktan AB, Gunay G (2014) Gender differences in evaluation of new business opportunity: a stereotype threat perspective. J Bus Venturing 29:273–288CrossRef
28.
Kalokerinos EK, von Hippel C, Zacher H (2014) Is stereotype threat a useful construct for organizational psychology research and practice? Ind Organ Psychol-US 7:381–402CrossRef
29.
30.
Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G (2000) Open peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 176:47–51CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The good, the bad and the rude peer-review
Authors
Andreas F. Mavrogenis
Andrew Quaile
Marius M. Scarlat
Publication date
01-03-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

International Orthopaedics 3/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Percutaneous endoscopic debridement with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis: a preliminary study

Original Article

Acetabular positioning is more consistent with the use of a novel miniature computer-assisted device

Original Paper

Management of neglected distal femur epiphyseal fracture-separation

Original Paper

Supramalleolar osteotomy in post-traumatic valgus ankle osteoarthritis

Original Paper

The antifibrinolytic and anti-inflammatory effects of a high initial-dose tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

Original Paper

While home chlorhexidine washes prior to shoulder surgery lower skin loads of most bacteria, they are not effective against Cutibacterium (Propionibacterium)