Peering Into the Peer Review Process and Acknowledging Those Who Do It Well

Prosthetics and Orthotics International (POI) is a peer-reviewed international, multidisciplinary journal for all professionals who have an interest in the medical, clinical, technical, educational and scientific aspects of prosthetics, orthotics and rehabilitation engineering. As Editors-in-Chief (EICs), our vision is that POI will be the journal of choice for all of those who wish to contribute to our rich and growing body of knowledge. We cannot achieve that vision without quality manuscript submissions from authors and careful review by peers.

Peer review has been defined as “a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.” ¹ Peer review serves two primary purposes: it helps to improve the quality of submitted manuscripts, and it helps to select the manuscripts that are most suited for publication. The peer review process has a long tradition in academic journals. It was first introduced in 1731 in a collection of medical articles published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh ² and has since become accepted as the key means by which scholarly work is evaluated prior to publication. ³

Today there are a number of different peer review practices in use. POI utilises a double-blind peer review process wherein neither the authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. The POI manuscript submission and peer review process is depicted in Figure 1. The review process is overseen by the EICs, who conduct an initial assessment to determine relevance of the manuscript to the scope of the journal, assess overall quality of the submission with respect to language, formatting and scientific design, and assess whether the manuscript appropriately acknowledges and is sufficiently distinct from previously published works. If deemed suitable for peer review, the EIC then delegates responsibility for managing the review process to an Associate Editor (AEs). The AE again assesses the article’s quality before making a final decision as to whether the manuscript should be subjected to peer review. If so, the AE then works to identify reviewers with methodological and subject matter expertise who are willing to review the manuscript in detail.

Figure 1.

Prosthetics and Orthotics International (POI) manuscript submission and peer review process.

After accepting an AE’s invitation to perform a review, and thoroughly reading the manuscript, peer reviewers provide a critique of the manuscript and recommendation to the AE as to whether the submission should be accepted, returned for revisions, or rejected. Recommendations from multiple reviewers are considered by the AE, who has responsibility for arriving at a decision regarding the submission.

Quality Peer Reviews

A high quality peer review is one where the recommendation to accept, return for revisions, or reject the manuscript is unbiased and well evidenced by a thoughtful critique of:

• the extent to which the manuscript makes a novel, important and clinically relevant contribution to the prosthetics and orthotics body of knowledge;

• whether the design and execution of the work is appropriate to answer the research question posed;

• whether the conclusions drawn by the author(s) are reasonable given the study design, data collected, and analysis performed; and

• whether the authors have communicated the information in a clear, well organized and concise manner.

High quality peer reviews aim to provide feedback tailored to genuinely help the authors improve the work. While feedback may be about any aspect of the manuscript, it should help the authors strengthen the rationale for the study, address gaps in the reporting, or clarify potential issues with the design, methods or data analysis. Feedback is most useful when it is actionable and provides specific detail about what should be changed. The tone of the review should be polite and constructive.

Timely Peer Reviews

Peer review is the slowest part of the publication process. Delays are typically caused by difficulty in finding qualified individuals who are willing to perform a review, delayed responses from reviewers, and/or submission of poor quality reviewer critiques. Delays in the peer review process affect timeliness of dissemination and implementation of research findings and can also have major consequences for authors who are dependent on dissemination of their research for accessing grants, promotions or thesis submission. Hence, POI requests that reviewers return their decision and critique within 21 days of receiving a manuscript. Upon receiving a review, AEs rate the quality and timeliness of submitted reviews so as to identify and acknowledge high quality peer reviewers.

SAGE Elite Reviewer Award

The evaluation of a manuscript for publication is a challenging task requiring critical thinking, time, effort, and clear articulation of opinions. It is an act of scholarship, professionalism and a necessary component of publication efforts. Nevertheless, this activity is generally devoid of reward or recognition, and usually anonymous to all but journal editors. We therefore wish to extend our thanks to all who have contributed to reviewing articles for POI.

In addition to acknowledging all who have contributed to POI as reviewers, we are pleased to announce a new award that highlights contributions from several outstanding peer reviewers.

The SAGE Elite Reviewer Award has been established to recognize reviewers whose contributions to POI have been exceptional in terms of number of reviews performed, quality of the written critiques and turnaround time.

Each year, the EICs analyse reviewer statistics to identify up to five reviewers who have provided multiple high quality peer reviews. The selected reviewers are acknowledged publicly for their contributions, and receive an equal share of a modest monetary award.

We are pleased to announce the 2019 SAGE Elite Reviewer Awardees for reviews conducted during 2018 are:

• Goeran Fiedler, PhD, University of Pittsburgh, United States

• Jennifer Howcroft, PhD, University of Waterloo, Canada

• Simone Pittaccio, PhD, Italian National Research Council, Italy

• Susan Ewers Spaulding, MS, CPO, University of Washington, United States

• Cecilia Li, PhD, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

While high quality and timely reviews are needed to facilitate publication and dissemination of the best evidence to all those in our community, reviewers also benefit from this process. Reviewers gain from contributing to the growth of their profession and from reading and learning from others’. Dr. Fiedler commented that “I learned to appreciate the value of peer review from having my own manuscripts and grants reviewed, which afforded me the opportunity to improve my work. I feel it is an important responsibility to contribute to that mechanism and always feel glad to be able to do that.” By taking an objective and critical perspective in reviewing others work, reviewers also hone their own scientific, reading, writing and critical thinking skills. Ms. Spaulding stated that “I review for Prosthetics and Orthotics International because it is an opportunity for me to learn more about a specific topic, think about a topic from another perspective, enhance my critical thinking skills and practice writing constructive feedback. By comparing my reviews to the editors or second reviewer, I can reflect on my own thinking and learn new ways to provide feedback. Peer reviewing has helped me reflect and think more critically about my own work.”

Becoming a Reviewer

Regardless of the benefits, one of the greatest challenges editors face is finding reviewers willing and able to contribute their time and expertise. There is no specific pathway to becoming a reviewer. Journals grow their reviewer databases primarily by adding authors to their reviewer database. If you are a published author, you can contribute to developing a culture of scholarly service through peer review. If you are not a published author, but have expertise in a particular subject area and are interested in reviewing, you can contact a journal editor and express interest in reviewing. You can also ask a colleague who already reviews for a journal, or sits on an editorial board, to recommend you. If you are interested in reviewing, but have little or no experience with peer review, you might ask a senior researcher or colleague to mentor you or delegate peer review duties to you when the opportunity arises. Our SAGE Elite Reviewer Awardees may also be able to offer advice on how to perform a quality review.

Publishers of journals also provide a number of resources to assist reviewers develop and hone their skills. For example, the SAGE Journal Reviewer Gateway provides information and resources for reviewers (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal-reviewer-gateway). There are also numerous articles written about the review process.^1,4 AEs also share their decision letters with reviewers so that reviewers can see the justification for the editor’s decision, as well as comments from the other peer reviewers. Sharing this information provides opportunity to reflect upon the different reviews as a way to continue to hone experience as a reviewer and better understand the expectations of the journal and its editors.

Conclusion

Peer review contributes to the process by which we evaluate the quality of submissions to POI and facilitates the translation of scholarly work to clinical practice. Recommendations from peer reviewers informs editors of whether the work described in the manuscript can make a contribution to the field and allows authors the opportunity to produce a more polished and rigorous article. As EICs, we wish to extend our thanks to all who contribute as peer reviewers for POI and commend the recipients of the SAGE Elite Reviewer Award for their contributions. We also welcome readers to contact us with queries, suggestions and recommendations for improving the peer review process.