de la Macorra, José C

Journal Of Oral Research

English

José C de la Macorra

Directory of Open Access Journals

The peer review process.

Journal of Oral Research (J Oral Res - Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Concepción)

ISSN Online 0719-2479 - ©2014 - Official publication of  the Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Concepción - www.joralres.com156
The peer review process is the method chosen by scien-
tists to assess and ensure the quality and validity of publi-
cations. There is general consensus that this is an imper-
fect process and has been much criticized. However, it is 
the method currently in use, and it has served its purpose 
up until today1. In this context, the functions of a re-
viewer can be summarized in two: say whether the ma-
nuscript should be published – advising the editor in his/
her final decision; and make comments that may help the 
authors to improve the manuscript. Peer review is always 
useful whether the manuscript will be published in that 
specific journal or not2.
Both functions are complementary, and authors should 
remember that the review is carried out by colleagues 
(peers), who dedicate part of their own time to this altruis-
tic activity. Peer review is intended to minimize errors in 
the publications, to ensure consistency with the scientific 
corpus and to prevent fraud. It is considered an honor, 
though certainly it sometimes can become a burden.
It is always advisable to facilitate the task of reviewers, 
avoiding mistakes that could predispose them against 
the work they are reviewing; so the manuscript must be 
carefully edited and checked before submission. Editors 
and reviewers appreciate a manuscript even more when 
authors have shown genuine interest in their document.
The way the text is written, the order of ideas, concre-
tion and attention to details must ensure maximum re-
adability. Authors should remember that their target au-
dience is not normally specialists, and that science must 
be transparent: if it cannot be understood and internali-
zed by others it is only research. Usually, when a reviewer 
does not understand some concepts, it is because they are 
not sufficiently explained. We must remember that the 
reviewer is usually an expert and if he/she does not un-
derstand well what has been said, how can the potential 
readers understand the text when they are less familiar 
EDITORIAL The peer review process . 
with the topic? My experience tells me that authors tend 
to think that everyone knows in detail their work and 
techniques, but unfortunately this is not always the case.
Authors should do whatever they are supposed to do 
before submission: each journal has its own standards in 
terms of number of words, number of images, tables and 
bibliography format. Some require subtitles, highlighting 
the most interesting aspects of the work, lists of possible 
reviewers, specific formats for images or tables, or infor-
mation about the contributions made by each of the sig-
ning authors, among others. All of these requirements 
should be met completely. Authors should prepare and 
review the manuscript entirely, in all its aspects, before 
sending it.
Authors ought to keep in mind that the central part of 
a study is the section where materials, subjects, methods 
and analysis are described. This is the section in which 
authors describe what they want to do and what they 
have done, which is not always the same. If somebody 
were to judge the quality of a manuscript by assessing 
just one of its parts, it would always be this one. It should 
be the easiest section to write, because it is the detai-
led description of the process followed, but it is also al-
most always the most difficult to understand. Authors 
should have this section reviewed by someone who has 
not been involved in the study, someone who does not 
know anything about the detailed methods of their par-
ticular research. They should write clearly; use schemes 
in subsections to explain different methods; justify and 
identify the groups, keeping the terminology consistent 
in the whole manuscript; and refer to other publications 
in which those methods have been already used, if appro-
priate. If something is not essential, keep it out, but make 
sure to include everything that is important.
Another critical point is statistical analysis. This is a 
section that new authors often see as an inevitable nui-
DOI: 10.17126/joralres.2015.031
157ISSN Online 0719-2479 - ©2014 - Official publication of  the Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Concepción - www.joralres.com
1. Gra inger DW. Peer review as 
professiona l responsibi l it y : A qua-
l it y control system only a s good 
as the part icipants. Biomater. 
2007;28:5199-5203.
2.  Provenza le JM, Stanley RJ. 
A systematic guide to reviewing 
a manuscript. Am J Roentgenol. 
2005;185:848-854.
REFERENCES.
sance. They usually have the study design and execution 
done by someone who is not participating in their re-
search. This is potentially a serious error, as the analysis 
must be appropriately designed to answer the research 
question. A statistician knows his/her subject but they 
may ignore the specific details of the study. If the authors 
cannot do the statistical analysis, they must make sure 
that whoever is going to carry it out should know exactly 
what they want to do and what they to try to find out.
Authors should establish the aims and motivations of 
the study clearly. Consequently, they should state in the 
introduction what the problem is, the current state of 
affairs and why the study is relevant. Nowadays the ever-
increasing number of manuscripts submitted for publi-
cation has put a great pressure on journals resulting in 
a Darwinian competition: only the fittest will survive. 
One of the characteristics of those manuscripts that sur-
vive is that they are able to show that the study answers 
relevant questions about relevant matters.
A good manuscript will include a discussion in which 
the authors analyze the process in depth, explain the im-
portance of their findings and identify the uncertain-
ties that have risen from the experiments, or due to the 
accuracy of measurements, the variability of samples or 
patients, or to statistical significance.
In short, it is always good to remember that the pur-
pose of a manuscript is to convince with the truth, and 
the clearer it is, the greater the impact on readers.
JOSÉ C. DE L A M ACORR A PhD, DDS
Facultad de Odontología.
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España.


The peer review process.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals

Journal of Oral Research (J Oral Res - Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Concepción)