I want to describe the peer review process for my most recent publication because this is how peer review is supposed to work. #MedEd jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-…
I sent an inquiry by email to see if the journal would be interested in an atypical review article (citing literature but also policies and personal experience) and was allowed to submit it as an editorial. It was reviewed by an Editor and two anonymous reviewers.
Reviewed 1 identified the value in the manuscript and also pieces that were missing. They were very kind in suggesting places in the manuscript where missing pieces could be inserted and a whole reorganization of the manuscript to make the material more accessible
#Reviewer2 identified additional concerns that included some that could be addressed (eg clarify personal experience, remove pieces that lacked sufficient evidence, details on cited lit) & others that couldn’t (eg literature on supply chain concerns, data specific to SARS-CoV-2)
The Editor validated the concerns of the reviewers, added in a request for a table, and provided an exemption to the number of citations traditionally allowed for this manuscript type. I looked at each comment and significantly modified the manuscript
The manuscript was re-reviewed. More changes were requested for clarity, eg the title changed to specify that this was perspective from New Orleans. The Editor allowed me to go over my word limit to provide the clarity requested from the reviewers. Changes were made and accepted
The final manuscript is much better than the original because reviewers volunteered their time during a pandemic to carefully read it, review the literature themselves, and offer critiques. It is now a tool already being used elsewhere to insist on safer approaches for workers
When you see publications that have holes in them, it isn’t only the fault of the authors. There were problems in my original manuscript caught by these reviewers. Editors and reviewers must critique the papers to maximize the validity of statements being made.
Peer review is an invaluable piece of science, and the quality of a journal is a direct function of the quality of the editors and reviewers doing this work. Thank you to @JACIInPractice and the reviewers that have helped this manuscript and my previous work.
