Anonymized Review Process: Let it Remain Unviolated

It is well-known that manuscripts when submitted to Journals go through a standard processing system, beginning with technical checks, followed by a brief overview by the Editor-in-Chief, being passed thereafter to the Editorial Board members for onward assignment to reviewers. Assessment by reviewers is the “heart” of the manuscript evaluation process. This is because, reviewers are not only subject experts with profound knowledge on the content of the submitted manuscript, but more importantly, they are blinded regarding the author or the institution of origin of the manuscript. Such reviewers are thus able to judge independently, providing unbiased, pertinent, critical, and often constructive comments regarding the content of the manuscript. It is undeniable that a true appraisal of a manuscript is possible only with such an anonymized reviewing process. While trying to hold on to the integrity of the evaluation process of the manuscripts, the Editorial Board, many a times, faces situations that threaten to breach the sanctity of anonymized review. The Editors, being well-known among the fraternity of the academia, are often approached by authors, intimating them of their submission, expecting a favorable response. Such personal communications from colleagues or well-respected fellow comrades of the medical speciality, are quite disconcerting for the Editors. They put the latter in a rather awkward stance, being strained between the ethical conduct of unbiased evaluation on one hand, and showing solidarity and maintaining goodwill with a fellow colleague on the other hand. Providing constructive comments based on the remarks of the reviewers and demanding revision/modification is an acceptable middle-path, upholding the quality of the article, as well as maintaining personal cordiality with authors. However, “Rejection” of the manuscript based on the reviewer’s assessment, despite a personal request from the submitting author, is taken quite unpalatably by the soliciting peer. Such negative decisions by the Editors are done often with a lump in the throat, risking alienation and unpopularity among peer groups. In the haze of trust and mistrust and interpersonal friction between fellows of the fraternity on two sides of the Journal table, it is perhaps forgotten that the essence of a publication is a widespread dissemination of something genuine and worthwhile in the medical field for the present and the future, in terms of useful, novel, or interesting information. This being the foremost priority, it is essential for the stakeholders of the Journal to function in an unbiased manner. It is also imperative for prospective authors to look beyond their vested interests, and respect this ethical principle of publishing. They should allow their submissions to be processed on the predesigned, uniform, conveyor belt of the Editorial system, and refrain from attempts at liaising with the Journal Editorial Board. Authors need not worry - let the anonymized processing prevail; Sweet, sour, and bitter - all tastes are receivable at the processing end! Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.