-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Foad Nahai, Peer Review: Does It Work?, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Volume 30, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 110–111, https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X10361885
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
The issue of peer review in scientific journals was recently thrust into the spotlight when it was suggested that climatologists supporting evidence of manmade global warming may have attempted to squelch publication of opposing data through influencing the peer review process. According to an article appearing in The Wall Street Journal, one prominent scientist, in a March 2003 email to a colleague, decried that the work of climate change “skeptics” had been accepted for publication in a respected peer-reviewed journal. He reportedly suggested that “perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”1
Whether there has been a systematic censure of data opposing the theory of climate change remains to be determined. Nevertheless, the potential for bias in peer review illustrated by these recent allegations should be a matter of concern to every journal editor and editorial board. Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) has taken a number of steps to ensure the high standards of our peer review process. First, each of our editors bears the responsibility of selecting appropriate reviewers with broad knowledge of the subject matter. Next, we have developed a transparent process that asks every reviewer to fully disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest relative to the scientific and/or clinical material under consideration. Disclosure of a conflict of interest virtually always results in selection of a different qualified reviewer to avoid the possibility of bias that might unfairly influence a manuscript’s opportunity for publication.2 As an added measure of security against possible bias, reviews are double-blinded, meaning that neither the names of authors nor reviewers are disclosed during the process. Blind review and the use of independent reviewers are widely acknowledged methods of promoting the goals of objectivity and scientific validity.3
