SCCM Reviewer Academy Thank you for participating in this next installment of the SCCM Reviewer Academy, the peer review process. Please note the relevant disclosures. Academic journals are responsible to the scientific community and the community at large for publishing and disseminating rigorous scientific content of the highest quality. To ensure the system functions as intended and promotes trust among the public and other members of the scientific community, a thorough editorial and peer review system is needed. Thus, for this module, we will discuss in detail the peer review process. The four objectives for our presentation today include characterizing the goals of a high-quality peer review, summarizing the structure and timeline for peer review, identifying the common threats to high-quality peer review, and finally, discussing the role of confidentiality in peer review. Peer review is broadly designed to assist the editor in determining whether an article ticks three important boxes. First, is the manuscript and science therein scientifically valid? Were rigorous and reproducible methods used to ask and answer the study question, and are the findings accurately and completely reported? Second, the peer review is intended to provide guidance on originality of the submitted work. Is this information innovative? Does it help us ask a question that's not been asked before? Does it use a new sample, method, or technology that hasn't been applied to this area? Each of these help position this article as something original that builds out and enriches the scientific literature. Third, peer review discerns the appropriateness of a manuscript. While many questions could be asked and answered, they may not be important and appropriate for publication. In short, the three primary goals of peer review are to help answer, is it true? Is it new? Is it important? The peer review process can provide other important benefits to authors and submitted manuscripts. It can ensure journal alignment with the submitted content, assist in clarity and quality of publishing, and identify and correct any errors of analysis, omission, and interpretation. As will be discussed in later modules, a good peer review should not get bogged down in minutiae, and rather focus on scientific validity, originality, and appropriateness. Understanding and interfacing with the editorial team improve the peer review experience and facilitate future career advancement of the peer reviewer. The editorial team has two key components, the administrative team and the scientific team. The administrative team involves a managing editor. This individual handles administrative responsibilities of the journal. These include ensuring that submitted articles meet journal requirements, managing metrics and issue content and release, and supporting users through the submission and peer review process. On the scientific side, the editorial team is led by the editor-in-chief, a highly experienced clinician or scientist tasked with upholding the journal's mission, adapting the journal to evolving clinical and scientific needs, and overseeing the peer review process. The editor-in-chief is often supported by a small number of deputy editors or associate editors with domain expertise such as respiratory failure and critical illness, pharmacology, or a specific methodology such as translational research. Associate editors are supported by an editorial board of experienced reviewers who provide routine peer review and guide journal decisions. The system is further buttressed by additional peer reviewers, individuals with expertise in the field who are called upon to provide expertise and input on submitted manuscripts. The workflow can be seen here. A manuscript is submitted in an online submission site and goes through a process of checks by editorial assistants for formatting, figures, etc. Once the manuscript has passed basic rules for submission, it is sent to the editor-in-chief. At this point, the EIC can either decide to desk reject based on the topic, rigor, relevance to readership, or lack of novelty, or refer it to one of the associate editors for further consideration. The associate editor will often have general expertise in the manuscript's content area or methodology and can determine whether the manuscript should be sent for full peer review versus rejection. Peer-reviewed papers are typically reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant content or methodologic expertise. While the time course may be variable, the primary goal is to balance efficiency and thoroughness. Peer reviewers provide comments to the author, as well as confidential comments to the associate editor. The AE makes a recommendation to the EIC who ultimately decides whether to accept, reject, or return the manuscript to the author for major or minor revisions. A resubmitted manuscript is typically referred to the AE who managed the original review and may also be re-reviewed by the originally assigned peer reviewers. Journals typically publish timelines on their websites, such as median time to first decision, although times are subject to variability, even at the same journal. Authors may consider sending an editorial inquiry prior to formal submission, especially if unsure about journal interest in the topic. There are threats to high-quality peer review. These include predatory journals and preprints of non-peer-reviewed manuscripts. A lack of transparency across data sources can prevent data quality validation, resulting in questionable manuscript integrity. A final threat includes author overstatement of study impact. Finally, we'd like to briefly discuss confidentiality in peer review, which again is journal-specific. Some journals use the single-blinding approach, where the author does not know who reviewed their paper, but the reviewers know who the authors are. Double-blinded means only the editors know the identities of author and reviewer. Double-blinding has benefits, as it provides a generally unbiased environment for the reviewer, who likely knows the people in their research community doing this work and may have preconceived notions about their research rigor or approach that may bias their review. Conversely, a lack of information about who the authors are may not provide the reviewer with context needed to fully evaluate the manuscript. For example, was a statistician involved? For a paper about nursing, was there a nurse collaborator? Finally, it is important to note that some journals have completely open peer review, where not just the authors but the readers are made aware of who reviewed the paper. Potential reviewers should make themselves aware of a journal's confidentiality policy. So let's review. What are the key points to take away about the peer review process? First, it's important to always remember that high-quality peer review is focused on three critical questions. Is it new? Is it true? And is it important? Each manuscript will vary with regards to how robustly they meet each of those criteria, which in combination should shape your review of the paper. While each journal may have some different processes or platforms, most journals do follow a common editorial structure and process. While peer review is an invaluable service to the scientific community and discovery, there are many threats to be aware of as you embark on your first experiences with peer review. These include predatory journals, lack of transparency, and overreaching conclusions. Finally, blinding in peer review is journal-specific.

peer review process

scientific validity

journal alignment

confidentiality

predatory journals