|
 
 |
| EDITORIAL |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 8
| Issue : 2 | Page : 57-58 |
|
Reviewers the backbone of a journal
Sai Krishna Puli
Department of Psychiatry, Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar, Telangana, India
| Date of Submission | 10-Nov-2022 |
| Date of Decision | 11-Nov-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 12-Nov-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 16-Dec-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sai Krishna Puli
Department of Psychiatry, Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar - 505 001, Telangana
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
DOI: 10.4103/tjp.tjp_49_22
How to cite this article:
Puli SK. Reviewers the backbone of a journal. Telangana J Psychiatry 2022;8:57-8 |
Every journal has its own style of functioning to suit the needs of its readers. Journals are established with prefixed goals by an organization or society, or group of members so that scientific data is transferred to its members.
Readers can start getting updated information in their respective fields. Doctor, a member of society needs to be updated regularly so that he can serve target people with the latest advances. Medical students, doctors regularly attend conferences, continuing medical education (CME) programs, and workshops to get their scientific database updated. Journal is one such tool for any member of the scientific community to improve their knowledge regarding the latest updates.
| Types of Articles Published in a Journal | |  |
Journals regularly have editorial, guest editorials, original research articles, review articles, brief research communications, case reports and case series, letters to editors, and stalwarts. Majority of the journals have this basic schema.
| How the Journals Function | | |
Journals have their submission websites or correspondence mails to get the articles which are taken for consideration. Once an article is received, the editor will review the article for technical information, whether the content suits the journal's audience and society's goals. Editor will check for any flaws in the research methodology and can ask for modifications or rejections at this level. Once this level is passed, then the editor will keep the article in review process.[1]
| Reviewers-The Backbone of a Journal | | |
Journals have single-blind review or double-blind review system depending on their functioning.[2] Reviewers are scientific members of an organization with knowledge in their respective fields. Reviewers can be selected from the extent of knowledge which they possess in respective fields. Few reviewers have interest in statistics,[3] while few have in advanced medical specialties. Depending on the number of articles submitted and the reviewer base of society, the editor will select reviewers after editorial review for proper review of submitted articles.
| What a Reviewer is Supposed to Review | | |
Reviewer should have an overview of how scientific data is presented in a proper documented and an easily understandable format. Reviewers will check for the study in existing scientific databases and check for new and innovative points. A journal reader expects updating their knowledge than reading the same scientific data again in a different place.
Reviewers will check for relevance of the research questions to its readers, study design, results and discussion clarity, whether the conclusion drawn is supported by the study or not and whether the tables, figures, references mentioned in the article are proper or not. Reviewers will submit their comments on the submitted article and can ask for modification of article to improve the scientific data presented. Few missing information and details can also be asked by the reviewer.
A good review takes minimum of 4 weeks time. If the reviewers feel that the article does not fulfill the criteria of its submission, he will recommend rejecting the article or for major changes or minor changes or accepting the article. After the reviewer comments are submitted, then the editor will have to review the comments mentioned and send the article to authors for corrections. Once the corrections are submitted, the editor will check and it can be sent for a re-review process if needed or it can be processed for publication. If the article is accepted, then it takes minimum of 4 weeks time by managerial staff for final proofs corrections.
| Importance of a Proper Review | | |
Reviewers are the strength and pillars of any journal. Reviewers should be trained and groomed to become better and serve their scientific organization in an effective way for better growth.
If review is fast and not properly done, we may miss major flaws in the scientific data and the journal may lose its credibility. It will have an impact on its further indexing process.
Every article may not have a new conclusion or message. Sometimes, studies are undertaken to notice the pattern of health issues, drugs, and morbidity and mortality in a particular area. Such kind of issues is to be kept in mind while reviewing the articles.
Every reviewer may not be perfect in the entire process. I believe in the principle “Together we learn and we grow by teaching and re-learning.” The editorial team depending on the knowledge and experience of reviewer will select articles to get the best of the review process.
Scientific societies should conduct workshops and CMEs regularly to improve the performance of the reviewers.
| Plagiarism | | |
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition.
Plagiarism can be checked by authors through various websites such as iAuthenticate, Google check, Scribbr, Grammarly, duplichecker, and plagiarism detector either freely or by paying fees. Plagiarism up to 10% can be considered. University Grants Commission 2017–2018 had given clear cut guidelines to be taken if the plagiarism rates are high.[4] Even though the journal editorial team run their own plagiarism check, reviewers should also check for plagiarism and compare the submitted study with already existing data for improving their own knowledge.[5]
| Article Rejection and Editor | | |
Journal indexing is a major achievement of any scientific society and the editors should be given free hand in the functioning of a journal. Any author submitting articles can check regarding indexing of journal and various guidelines of universities for promotions in respective databases.[6] A journal should have its own funding structure so that it does not get biased toward any authors. Every editor should be unbiased and take firm decisions to improve the quality of scientific research data.[7],[8] An article which does not suit the journal should not be allowed to get published as the reader will lose interest in reading the journal.
“Let us learn together and let us all improve together”
| References | | |
| 1. | Report of the world association of medical editors: Agenda for the future. Croat Med J 2001;42:121-6. PMID: 11259731.  |
| 2. | Regehr G, Bordage G. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer. Med Educ 2006;40:832-9. |
| 3. | Godlee F, Jefferson T, Schultz KF, Altman DG. Statistical peer review. In: Peer Review in Health Sciences. London: BMJ Books; 1999. p. 157-71. |
| 4. | University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Lntegrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations. 2017. Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4 (Extraordinary), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India; 2018. Available from: www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/8864815_UGC-Public-Notice-on-Draft-UGC-Regulations,-2017.pdf. [Last accessed on 2022 Nov 11]. |
| 5. | Kleinert S. Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and text recycling. Lancet 2011;377:281-2. |
| 6. | Mondal H, Mondal S. Check indexing status of a journal. J Family Med Prim Care 2020;9:3166-7. [Full text] |
| 7. | Walter G, Bloch S. Publishing ethics in psychiatry. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2001;35:28-35. |
| 8. | Garfield E, Welljams-Dorof A. The impact of fraudulent research on the scientific literature. The Stephen E. Breuning case. JAMA 1990;263:1424-6. |
|
Search Pubmed for