Judging the judges: the role of journal editors

In societies with a free and open judiciary system, individuals are permitted to challenge a judge's verdict, ability to remain impartial, and conduct. In the first situation, a higher court of appeal typically handles the matter.1 In the second, the judge is disqualified from overseeing a case if an objective observer raises reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality.2 In the third situation, a governing body, such as a judicial council, hears the complaint. To minimize the likelihood of such events, judges are appointed based on their legal knowledge, prior experience, and a historical demonstration of impartiality and fairness. Although most medical journals and their editors conduct themselves fairly, there are some differences between their practice and that of a judiciary body. In this article, I pose four questions to medical journal editors concerning their impartiality and training as researchers and editors, and the options available to those who disagree with a decision rendered by an editor or editorial board.