Editorial

Possible conflicts of interest in medical publishing

Anonymous versus non-anonymous peer-review

We personally would prefer to referee openly and be known to the authors, but we understand the arguments against such an approach. We have discussed giving reviewers the option of being identified, or indeed of giving authors the right to request ‘open’ reviews, with reviewers being allowed to refuse. The problem is that already it is difficult to get good reviewers to act on the timescale desirable. There are times when we need to ask over 10 referees in order to get two sound reports. All

Publicly available referees’ reports

We would love to publish the reports together with authors’ responses, but this is not without difficulty. Some reports are of poor quality and we ignore them or override them or get additional reviews. Should they all be made available? If publicly available, will they be anonymous or not? However, this issue is already under discussion with our publishers as to its feasibility – so watch this space!

Rejection without external review

For about 30% of the submitted papers we take an editorial decision to reject without reviewing. However, we will also consult one another or our specialist Section Editors or statistical advisors before doing so. Reasons for direct editorial rejection vary but can include ethical, linguistic, plagiarism and statistical grounds as well as, mostly, not being sufficiently novel to warrant adding to the literature ‘noise’, or being simply inappropriate for our journal. Most importantly, such

Publication of submissions immediately on receipt

Between 2000–2009 RBM Online did go some way towards this, as we published all submitted abstracts prior to review. As editors we liked that as it showed courage and swiftness and it was generally very well received by the journal’s users. Once the submitted abstracts disappeared and there was no paper to be found later, it was an obvious conclusion that reviewers or the editor had declined to publish. This was part of Bob Edwards’ vision. However, we are delighted to be able to announce that

Editorial responsibility

We take our responsibilities seriously and do not just rubber stamp our reviewers’ reports but engage with their arguments and criticisms, and where necessary may override them. We are supported by an excellent team of associate, emeritus and section editors to whom we turn for support and advice.

Impact factor

We agree mostly with Norbert Gleicher (see our detailed editorial on this topic published last year; Editorial, 2012). We already publish on our webpage a range of other impact algorithms. However, we also have to ‘play the game’ to some extent – hence we do solicit reviews – although primarily because these are useful to our readers, and, in the case of Young Investigator Reviews, to our writers too!

The fact is that peer review and editorial behavior have been more or less constant over many