Peer review: the cornerstone of scientific publishing integrity

Peer review underpins the quality and integrity of scientific publishing. It is also a largely unrecognized and unacknowledged act on the part of the reviewers. It has been estimated, by Publons, that the top 1% of peer reviewers of scientific papers spent more than 1.3 million hours reviewing papers in 2018–2019.

This editorial is a call to all our readers to consider becoming part of the team of peer reviewers on which Climacteric and similar journals rely to allow us to publish the latest scientific research and reviews whilst maintaining high quality and trust. Climacteric currently sits amongst the top 30% of all O& G Journals with an Impact Factor of 2.566. This is due not only to the quality of the research we publish, for which we must thank our authors, but also, in equal part, to the dedication and high standard of our peer reviewers.

Peer reviewing is an important and rewarding task which not only enhances our collective ability to trust and understand research but may also accelerate the reviewer’s own research and academic career. Web sites such as Publons (publons.com) provide free online training courses for peer reviewers. If you review for Climacteric you will find a tick box at the end of the review submission which provides a link to Publons; this will offer to acknowledge you, keep a record of all your peer reviews (even for unpublished articles) and, in turn, introduce you to fellow clinicians and researchers worldwide. Publons also publishes an annual honor list, with certificates, of the top 1% of peer reviewers in each scientific discipline.

Moves are afoot in the world of scientific publishing to make peer review more appealing and to give peer reviewing the same sort of recognition as is accorded to published authors. There is no doubt the role of peer reviewer will receive more recognition in the years ahead and this will encourage more to volunteer for this role. At present, however, the search for talented and willing peer reviewers is the number-one problem for journal editors worldwide. Delays in peer review can be long, leading to delays in proper assessment of submitted papers and to disappointed and frustrated authors, to which those of us who have submitted papers can testify.

The key requirement to be a peer reviewer is enthusiasm. Beyond that, the reviewer should be clinically current in the area of research being reviewed, fair, unbiased and professional. A peer reviewer should assess the submitted research and provide honest feedback to both the authors and the editors. When peer review is performed well, even a rejection can be a positive result for the authors as communication of that decision will include a clear explanation of the limitations of the paper that led to its rejection plus constructive suggestions on how the research could be improved to help the authors with future publication.

Peer review should be structured, summarizing first the key points of the paper, followed by a review of its methodology. Data should be examined carefully for both accuracy and presentation and any statistical methods evaluated. If there are reservations about the statistics used, our editorial team can provide expert statistical advice. The reviewer should offer an overall comment on the obvious strengths and weaknesses of the paper, its importance, significance and novelty and, of course, any ethical considerations¹.

Several papers published last year in Climacteric serve to highlight the weaknesses in current biomedical literature as well as practical guides on how to assess a scientific paper – information vital for both readers and reviewers^2–6.

The current peer-review process used by Climacteric and similar journals involves several steps. All submissions are filtered by editors before peer reviewers are invited. A minimum of two reviewers is required for each paper. The identity of reviewers is withheld from the submitting authors, although the review itself is passed on to the authors who, in many cases, will be asked for revisions before publication can be considered.

Over the next few years as Open Access becomes more the norm in scientific publishing, a new type of peer reviewing may well be adopted, allowing direct contact between reviewers and authors during the pre-publication phase and perhaps even post publication. Many believe that the new model will encourage faster, more useful reviews than the present system. Only time will tell⁷.

If you are at the early stages of your clinical or scientific career or have never performed peer reviews before, we encourage you to consider this very worthwhile role. We will help you though the process and direct you to online learning programs if desired. For those of you who are a part of our broader IMS family through the Council of Affiliated Menopause Societies (CAMS), you will shortly receive a similar invitation to become a peer reviewer from Professor Tommaso Simoncini, your Chairman. For those leaders in our field who have already contributed so much to the IMS and to this journal, we thank you, but we also ask you to continue to give us the benefit of your experience, your wisdom and your encouragement of other members of your team. Each author values the reviews provided and, as leaders in the field, you are in the ideal position to use your peer review to help aspiring researchers.

Everyone who reviews for Climacteric will receive appropriate recognition each year in our December issue and will be issued with a certificate if requested.

Climacteric has a very strong Editorial Board whose members undertake to provide at least three peer reviews plus an editorial or review paper each year. We thank them for their contributions in the past and look forward to their support over the next 12–18 months. Editorial Board appointments are of 2 years’ duration, with mutual review at each World Congress. Regular peer reviewers can also expect to receive an invitation to join the Editorial Board in acknowledgement of their work.

To act as a peer reviewer is to protect the key principles of scientific research and to ensure clinical medicine is practiced in a manner best and safest for our patients. Peer review is no longer unrecognized or unrewarded. It offers the reviewer the chance to see the latest research before it is published, to learn from the experience gained from reviewing, to interact with colleagues from around the world, and to receive recognition which will enhance his or her career in clinical and research medicine. To paraphrase the words of the late President John F. Kennedy, ‘Ask not what your journal can do for you, instead, ask what you can do for your journal’.

For further information please contact: [email protected]