The value of peer review

Benedict Rogers

Editor-in-Chief of the Annals

The peer review process is not new but was first described to regulate the medical profession in Ethics of the Physician (Adad al-Tabib), written by the Syrian physician Ishaq bin Ali Al-Rahawi (854-931 AD) from northern Syria.¹ Its role as a mechanism to assess scientific papers submitted for publication was formally recognised in 1752 by the Royal Society of London in selecting manuscripts for Philosophical Transactions, primarily for subject matter rather than quality.² From the early 20th century, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and Science began using peer review in the form widely recognised today.

In equal measure, it affords editorial boards the ability to objectively accept or reject papers while improving the quality of submitted manuscripts. Peer review is therefore vital to the integrity of surgical research and the progress of surgical practice.

Numerous recent reports in the news media have been critical of the peer review process. It has been compared to ‘asking one of your mates to read it through […] not a test of truth; it’s a test of plausibility’.³ High profile research malpractice, in addition to the plethora of medical and epidemiological data present to the public during the current COVID-19 pandemic, has only heightened the importance of critical analysis of medical manuscripts submitted for publication.

The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, in line with the majority of biomedical journals, undertakes single-blind peer review, whereby the reviewers know the identity of authors, but not vice versa. Numerous other models exist, including double-blind, triple-blind, quadruple blind and open peer review.⁴ No model is perfect, in terms of the ability to achieve ‘true’ blinding, practicality, lack of bias or expense.⁵ Furthermore, no model can exclude all forms of research malpractice.

Advances in technology have dramatically changed the mechanism of peer review. The ability to cross-reference text, electronic access to similar published articles and the overall ease of global communications afford a reviewer today many advantages compared to colleagues in the past. While technological advances will continue, none will replace the insight and knowledge of an informed colleague, practising in the same medical specialty.

Peer reviewing a paper is a noble academic activity, serving to benefit patients, the profession and the wider society, for little or no financial reward. As Editor-in-Chief, in conjunction with the Associate Editors, we endeavour to contact and thank all those who submit particularly good reviews. Furthermore, all peer reviewers with Annals are strongly encouraged to register with Publons⁶ to develop their academic portfolio.

Annals welcomes all surgeons with an academic interest in the practice of surgery and is always looking to increase the pool of expert peer reviewers. Despite, and contrary to, recent media reports, I continue to praise and support colleagues who spend their own free time for the wider benefit. Published in this issue is the entire list of reviewers from 2020; this journal, its authors as well as its readers thank you all.