The challenge of finding reviewers.

Abstract

As an editor, probably my greatest challenge over the last couple of years has been finding suitable reviewers for papers. As I noted in the September 2022 issue, OPO is currently setting records for the number of submissions and articles published. While that is a sign of a healthy journal, it does mean that an increasing number of reviewers are needed. Even on the east coast of the United States, there are times when I think I can hear the groans from farflung parts of the world as another reviewer request lands in your inbox. I am old enough to remember the days when the editor would simply mail the printed manuscript to you, and sometimes, it was easier (and quicker) to review it, rather than having to go to the trouble of sending it back (especially if it had to be mailed overseas). While electronic communication around the globe is undoubtedly faster and certainly requires much less physical effort, perhaps it is just too easy to hit that unavailable or decline button and move on. So can I ask that you at least pause for a few minutes and think about the poor editor as he or she sends out the tenth or eleventh request (I think my personal record to date is 19 requests) in an attempt to find two qualified reviewers for a particular paper. The fact of the matter is that as scientists, clinicians or just readers, we all need peerreviewed journals. Of course, peerreview does not mean the findings of a paper are correct or even accurate, but it does mean that the paper has been examined by two or more people working in the same or a similar field, who considered that the manuscript makes a contribution to the literature and is worthy of wider distribution. To me, a peerreviewed paper is the diametric opposite of contemporary social media postings, where apparently, everyone is now an expert, and one author's online posting carries as much weight as anyone else's. If this means that we are practicing ‘academic elitism’, then I plead guilty as charged, but I do not apologise for doing so. The fact that it is challenging to draft a highquality scientific article and get it accepted into a wellregarded academic journal can only be a good thing, and the credit for an outstanding paper goes to the authors and all those involved in the review process. It means that the system is working. Therefore, this is my seemingly annual request to ask you to step up and help out by reviewing articles. I completely understand that it often seems a thankless job and can get in the way of all the other important things that we have on our plates. But without reviewers, we will not have peerreviewed papers and therefore no highquality publications. Accordingly, we all have a responsibility to maintain the system. I have heard it said that we should try and review a minimum of three papers for each one we publish ourselves. An excellent ratio if you can manage it. Another suggestion is to get senior Masters and PhD students to review papers, with the assistance and guidance of their supervisors. That way, as they begin their academic careers, our students are receiving training in the art of reviewing. As well as giving them a valuable skill, they will also gain insight into the publication process. If you are currently supervising a Masters or PhD student and are happy to help them with their first reviews, then please let me know. As an aide, Wiley, the publisher of OPO, provides excellent guidance for new reviewers at: https://autho rserv ices.wiley.com/Revie wers/journ alrevie wers/howtoperfo rmapeerrevie w/stepbystepguide torevie wingamanus cript.html. It is equally important to state that a topclass review should fulfil multiple roles. The first question to ask is whether the paper is appropriate for the particular journal. For example, if we receive an article that is not related to eye care or vision science, then it will not be accepted. Furthermore, OPO does not publish papers regarding the procedures involved in ophthalmic surgery. Therefore, any manuscript in that particular area is almost certain to be rejected without review. Secondly, is the paper at or close to publishable quality? Sometimes the manuscript examines an interesting idea, but the reviewer realises that it is far away from the required standard. Thirdly, is the science valid, or are there significant flaws in the methodology, analysis or conclusions? Finally, there remains the ‘so what’ question. An experiment can be welldesigned and performed, with the results being analysed appropriately, but if the reviewers do not consider it to make a useful contribution to the literature, then one must ask whether it deserves to take up space in the journal. And even if the answer to all of these questions lies in favour of publication, the reviewer still needs to consider whether the paper can be improved. A good review will be constructive and helpful and should be viewed as such. On occasions, the process might feel antagonistic, but in truth, especially in the field of Ophthalmic and Vision Sciences, which is relatively small, we should all be trying to assist our colleagues in their endeavours. None of this should be considered to indicate that the present peerreview process is perfect or ideal. There are Received: 19 September 2022 | Accepted: 20 September 2022 | Published online: 26 September 2022