Reviewing and systematic reviews

摘要

During mid-2005 the journal operations made a switch to the Elsevier on-line editorial system. Considering the fact that the systems are still operated by fallible human beings, this transition has gone remarkably smoothly. There are many advantages, notably the freedom from reliance upon postal systems. However, with most leading journals going in this direction, the greatest difficulty remains that of finding sufficient suitable and timely manuscript reviewers. The reality is that on-line submission has led to a greatly increased submission rate. It proves increasingly necessary for us and for many other journals to make an initial pre-screening of manuscripts to identify those that are of the highest scientific quality and originality. Manuscripts that lack hypotheses or are scientifically sound but merely repeat older routine studies with new commercial products have to be assigned a low priority and often rejected forthwith. Ideally this pre-screening will be done rapidly, and this is a primary goal for 2006; due to the transition process and the sudden bulge in manuscripts this has taken some time in 2005. Swift rejection enables re-submission to an alternate journal. Selected manuscripts-currently the majority—then enter the full process of expert peer review. As members of a scientific community, published authors have an obligation to share their expertise by a willingness to function as peer reviewers. Here, timeliness of reporting is as important as length or exhaustiveness of review. This anonymous process, it has to be said, sometimes invites sarcasm at the real or imagined failings of manuscripts. However, if we believe we live in a moral universe, we will strive to "do as we would wish to be done to". Constructive and helpful criticism is widely appreci-ated-I am sure that such expressions, with submitted manuscript revisions, are far more than reviewer flattery!