Editor,
Peer review is used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published.
Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess the manuscripts submitted
to a journal for originality, validity, and significance to help editors make an informed
decision about whether the manuscript should be published in their journal. Journal
editors usually assume that they can recruit skilled reviewers to guide their decision-making
effort and that reviewers will do a meticulous job and take the time to do this unpaid,
usually unsung work.
It is usually considered a privilege to review the works of our colleagues and to
look at the relevance and scientific merit of the works.[1] The manuscripts submitted are usually at the cutting edge of the specific research
area, and those that are finally published are the best of the manuscripts submitted
for consideration. Thus, a reviewer has the opportunity to read and consider varied
new perspectives, ultimately giving considerable educational value to the review process.
A reviewer's skills may be sharpened considerably by reading each new manuscript,
both excellent and less than excellent manuscripts. This also helps them to understand
how their own work could be crafted to avoid the problems observed in the less worthy
manuscripts.
On the corollary, journal editors expect reviewers to write reviews that are instructive
to the authors and helpful to decide whether the manuscript is worthy to be published.
Replacing “sharp” comments and “casual” dismissals with thoughtful and constructive
feedback on how the manuscript can be improved can be vital.[1] Several journals like Journal of Vascular Interventional Radiology (JVIR) and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR) and societies such as the Indian Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
(ISVIR) have been conducting onsite training sessions during annual conferences to
educate their reviewer base and improve the quality of reviews. Post-COVID, there
is a paradigm shift and need for such events to become virtual.
To assess the interest and enthusiasm among interventional radiologists in India with
regard to peer review and critical appraisal, an online survey form was created and
circulated among the ISVIR members. Ninety-four responses were received, of which
94% were from India and the rest from SAARC countries and other nations. Of the total
responders, 32% were already reviewers for our journal. A lesser proportion (23%)
of responders were reviewers for other interventional radiology (IR) related journals.
Of all respondents, 16% were residents in radiology or fellows in IR, and a higher
percentage (51%) were early-career interventional radiologists who wished to acquire
critical appraisal knowledge and learn the processes to improve practice. Fewer than
33% of the responders reviewed and critically appraised manuscripts at a frequency
of once a month or higher. About 50% of respondents reviewed or appraised studies
at a frequency lower than once in 3 months. Approximately 95% of the survey participants
were interested in attending virtual and onsite peer events relating to article review
and critical appraisal.
We propose to conduct such peer events in the near future to encourage future reviewers
to engage in this fascinating and privileged role, to enhance scholarship, and to
contribute to the betterment of our journal and the IR community as a whole.
