Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?

PURPOSE

To establish the current peer-reviewed practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery and correlate these to the journal's impact factor. Unfortunately, this is not receiving much attention and a critical literature gap in various disciplines; thus, determining the current practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery could provide valid insight that may be potentially applicable to other academic medicine disciplines as well.

METHODS

Orthopaedic surgery journals belonging to the Journal Citation Reports were queried, and the following was extracted: impact factor (IF) and blinding practices: single (SBPR), double (DBPR), triple (TBPR), quadruple (QBPR), and open (OPR) blinding review process and possibility of author-suggested reviewer (ASR) and non-preferred reviewer (NPR) options.

RESULTS

Of the 82 journals, four were excluded as they allowed submission by invitation only. In the remaining, blinding was as follows: SBPR nine (11.5%), DBPR 52 (66.7%), TBPR two (2.6%), QBPR zero (0%), and OPR three (3.8%), and in 12 (15.4%), this was unclear. ASR and NPR options were offered by 34 (43.6%) and 27 (34.6%) journals respectively, whereas ASR was mandatory in eight (10.2%). No correlation between IF and any other parameter was found.

CONCLUSION

The rules of the "game" are unclear/not disclosed in a significant number of cases, and the SBPR system, along with the ASR (mandatory sometimes) and NPR, is still extensively used with questionable integrity and fairness. Several recommendations are provided to mitigate potentially compromising practices, along with future directions to address the scarcity of research in this critical aspect of science.

Bibliometrics Evaluation of Scientific Journals and Country Research Output of Dental Research in Latin America Using Scimago Journal and Country Rank

Innovations in dental sciences are potentially disruptive; however, the language barrier in the case of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) limits access to scientific studies. There is a necessity to measure the development of dental research across the LAC region, where economic power and postgraduate education access vary significantly. This article aims to analyze documents, citations, and journals and compare the SJR, H-Index, citation rates, and Co-occurrence Networks (Keywords) between dental journals published in LAC and the rest of the world, according to the report of Scimago Journal and Country Rank, between the years 1996 and 2020. Results show that Brazil leads dental research in the LAC, scoring the highest number of published documents, citations, and SJR metrics. The mean H-index and SJR of LAC dentistry journals are significantly lower than those of other regions (p < 0.03); however, there are no significant differences in the mean total citations in the last 3 years between LAC and other regions (p > 0.15). This suggests that the articles published in dentistry journals from LAC are being cited in similar proportions to the journals of other regions, but a large portion of these citations came from publications with low scientific impact.