Peer review – still the well‐functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research

A scientific journal needs readers, authors, publishers and reviewers. The referee system is one of the essential parts of the self-criticizing process typical of scientific thinking. The system helps to create new scientific facts and rules, link them to the existing knowledge, and to avoid false conclusions and unethical practices (e.g. underemphasizing or passing over earlier research or overemphasizing novel findings). It is easy to understand that young scientists starting research projects can have enormous advantages from the critical feedback. Usually, also eminent scientists and established, high-level researchers may benefit from critical stimulation, even incision and dissection – although the narcissistic pain, at least immediately, to these sitting on an Olympian top may be surprisingly great. Careful peer review demands time. The average rather short time spent (3 h) presented in a study by Snell and Spencer (1) may be realistic for a very experienced assessor deeply oriented with the topic, but not for an average reviewer. In all cases, it consumes a lot of efforts from the reviewer. Why do most scientists accept (not all do) these time-consuming requests? One strong motivating factor is learning: reviewing an article is a very demanding task and forces you to develop your thinking and fill in personal limitations and gaps. Another major reason may be an altruistic love of art: intimate relation to the scientific process and community. A debt of gratitude and solidarity towards scientific community are major motivating factors. Acting as a reviewer is seen as a professional responsibility. I calculated that about 600 international or domestic reviewers have commented on my drafts. I highly respect and thank the vast majority of them, also (and especially) the quarter of assessments with rejections or negative comments, although I immediately quite often responded with insulted narcissism and denial of critical facts presented. A small minority of slovenly, careless or incompetent reviews still do not deserve any thanks – except the lesson that all human effort is prone to errors and limitations, including personal feedback to the juniors and co-scientists. However, it is not necessarily easy to recruit reviewers – and keep them under discipline, especially in terms of timetables. A careful review is a time-consuming process: you must be an expert in the field of the manuscript if you want to comment adequately on the methods and findings and link the findings to the existing scientific knowledge. First, one way could be the possibility of expanding the group and encouragement by the editor to perform the review as a team. Many eminent top scientists are naturally the main targets of potential reviewers but often busy and loaded with many other duties. Even top scientists may not be thoroughly familiar with all elements of a manuscript. However, they usually have a group of co-scientists in different phases of their scientific career. Most reviewers feel lonely in this task (1). Many ask colleagues for opinions on the paper being reviewed but during current busy work and scientific life, most are not motivated to do this kind of voluntary work. Being a formal member of the evaluators may motivate. If the topic of a draft submitted for review approaches the research line of a pre- or postdoctoral young scientist (recently oriented with the literature), the performing of the review as a pair, or a small team may increase its quality and decrease the personal effort needed. In addition, this educates new generations and expands the pool of maturing novice reviewers to do this task: junior scientists do not usually have an adequate working knowledge of how to effectively critique research manuscripts (2). A second way could be by creating professional dialogue and personal contact between the reviewer and the editorial staff. The power of professional editorial process must also be added and integrated between the authors and the reviewers. Within the current system based on the voluntary work by the reviewers, editors hardly dare to bother reviewers more than once – or maybe twice after revisions of manuscripts. So the dialogue between reviewers and authors stops early which may lead to half-completed decisions. This unfinished process may be one reason why many authors feel that recommended revisions in their manuscripts were based on an editor's or referee's personal preferences, and in revising their manuscripts a quarter had actually made changes they felt were incorrect (3). Although, making the process electronic saves time and costs, at the best, it may also disturb the personal link between the editor and a potential reviewer. The more impersonal the invitation to act as reviewer is (as it is often when increasingly modern web-based systems are applied), the higher the risk of not accepting the task; personal contact to the editor and the journal makes the acceptance easier. Third, it is important to match the draft with the right reviewer. Although the rules of science are rather universal, assessing a draft which content is marginally related to your expertise may lead to non-acceptance, low quality, or at best, it consumes a lot of time and efforts, and the cost-effectiveness is low. However, the number of top scientists may be limited; they often are scientific competitors and possibly biased towards their own results and paradigms. Fourth, reviewers also need education and feedback and an opportunity for learning. The ability to contribute with high-quality critique is an essential element of the scientific peer review process and an important professional skill. In the study by Snell and Spencer (1) only 14% of respondents had received formal training in reviewing, although 66% said they would like such training. So, most reviewers are self-taught but try to be better by checking other reviewers’ assessments, final decision of the editor, and final article (if published). Although the potential reviewers tend to be sensitive after a considerable investment in a peer review, some delicate feedback on the timetable and significance of their task might motivate some to learn to perform better reviews – and possibly increase the risk of denials in future requests? Fifth, not all reviewers are willing to sign their reviews; many believe that anonymity is the key element. However, transparency of the review process will progress in future as will the ability to tolerate its side-effects. In summary, the appropriateness of what gets published in the scientific literature depends upon competent peer referees. The influence of these gatekeepers is dauntingly large but the system has functioned well. So the scientists performing actively high-level peer reviews are the salt of scientific community. They are not only paying their debt to the scientific community but also creating new scientific capital and knowledge thus cultivating one of the best qualities of human nature, namely altruistic thinking of the advantage of the community instead of one's own. And finally, on behalf of Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica I am pleased to warmly thank the more than a thousand reviewers giving this Journal the benefit of their expertise and experience.