The reviewers’ Bermuda triangle

There can be no more appropriate a time to consider the relationship between peer reviewed journals, reviewers and authors than at the very start of a new Education for Primary Care issue, and the start of a new year.

In the medical world, the journal ‘Medical Essays and Observations’, published from 1733 to 1744, was a pre-cursor of ‘Medical & Philosophical Commentaries’ which appeared in 1773. This was the first medically orientated journal to take root before metamorphosing into the Annals of Medicine and, subsequently, the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which itself survived until the mid-part of the 20^th Century [1].

Therefore, it can be seen that academic journals have been around for many years and were a key component in the development of medical professionalism that helped to separate healthcare professionals from empirics and quacks.

In turn, peer review of submissions to academic journals by experienced researchers and academics has long been a cornerstone of academic life. Indeed, it forms part of the foundation upon which the dissemination of reliable information by journals has taken place.

Which brings me to a concern for many editors of academic journals across the world. As the pandemic took hold in 2020, submissions of papers to academic journals increased. However, for many journals, the numbers of people available to review those papers simultaneously declined. The paradox of people having more time available to author papers they had long intended to write up but hadn’t quite got around to, yet no longer having the time available to review the submissions of others, was difficult for journals to manage. However, for some journals, Education for Primary Care included, the real sting in the tail of this paradox is that the submission of papers has now returned to pre-pandemic levels but the numbers of people willing to review those papers has not recovered in parallel.

So where have all the reviewers gone?

The dramatist inside me likes to think of them having tried to cross the reviewers’ equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle and simply vanished without trace. However, just like the real Bermuda Triangle, this view doesn’t stand up well to objective scrutiny, as a number of the missing reviewers still submit papers to our journal. The more likely explanation, therefore, is that demands of service provision and teaching have not themselves yet receded to pre-pandemic levels and publishing one’s own paper is higher up the average author’s to do list than reviewing someone else’s paper.

However, all is never likely to be completely lost as there are a subset of very altruistic reviewers out there who, despite possessing considerable workloads themselves, almost always take time to review academic papers when asked. The sense of professionalism and duty those people show towards the academic community is to be applauded and, on behalf of editors everywhere, I thank you for continuing to lead by example.

Yet, not wishing to take excessive advantage of the ultra-altruists, and for the greater good of clinical education and academia more widely, as we commence this new year and new issue, I would ask all the authors who submit to Education for Primary Care to think about when they last reviewed a paper for any journal and, if it isn’t recently, when you are next asked to review a paper please try to work that request into your diary and accept the invitation.

The alternative risks you disappearing into the Reviewers’ Bermuda Triangle – not a very scary thought I know, but if enough reviewers disappear in there then the journal concerned will eventually disappear too.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.