Developing the peer review system of Acta Ophthalmologica (2001)

A drug company sales representative recently visited our department and told us a story about a humorous conversation he had had with one of his neighbours. He told the neighbour that his job required him to travel to the offices of eye doctors and inform them about those of the company’s drugs that were used to treat eye diseases. The neighbour was quite surprised, and asked if there really is a need for special doctors for diseases of such tiny parts of the body! Of course, we all know that there really is a need. And methods of diagnosing and treating eye diseases are developing so quickly that there is an ongoing and large need in ophthalmology to publish new scientific findings, as well as review articles summarising current knowledge on hundreds of different ophthalmological subjects. Although articles are occasionally invited, most scientific medical speciality journals primarily rely upon authors to take the initiative in submitting manuscripts for publication. At least for Acta, this approach has worked well since many more manuscripts are submitted than it is possible to publish, allowing and requiring the editors to select only the best for inclusion. The peer review process has been the most important mechanism for ensuring the quality and relevance of published material, and almost always results in improvements of those manuscripts that are finally accepted and published. Most scientific authors are very much aware of the value of the comments of reviewers, and realise that the co-operation between authors, independent referees and the Editorial Office not only serves to select those articles that are “worthy of publication”, but even more importantly to increase the quality of those papers which finally are published. Acta Ophthalmologica has used a peer review system for many years. Under the strict system introduced by the previous Chief Editor, Professor Niels Ehlers, manuscripts usually have been reviewed by at least two independent referees. Selection of referees, correspondence with authors, and final decisions regarding revisions, acceptance and rejection have been almost solely made by the Chief Editor, however. Most clinical speciality journals, including Acta, are edited by physicians who treat patients and are part-time editors (Garrow et al. 1998). Such Chief Editors are able to understand and judge a considerable portion of the material that is submitted, but with the emergence of more sub-specialities and the rapid development of scientific methods and standards, publishing decisions often require a broader competence than any one editor can hope to maintain. Reviewers certainly provide much of that required knowledge, but the Editorial Board can also be a most important source of expertise for a Chief Editor. Acta now has a new and different Editorial Board, which will play an expanded and more active role. In the past, Acta for the most part simply offered editorial board positions to full professors at the various Nordic ophthalmological departments. In contrast to this, the new Board has been recruited on the basis of sub-speciality, general knowledge and willingness to play a larger and more active part for the journal. The new Board also is larger and may grow further in the future. Thus, the Board’s broadened expertise and larger capacity should serve to improve Acta’s ability to provide timely and helpful editorial oversight. This new Board also will work in a new way. For a large proportion of submitted manuscripts, reviewers will be selected not by the Chief Editor, but by individual Editorial Board members with expert knowledge in the very area of the submitted material. Board members will then combine reviewers’ comments with their own judgements. All communication with authors and reviewers will still be handled through the Editorial Office in order to allow Board members to concentrate on issues that they can best address, i.e. help select the best referees, provide better assistance to submitting authors and crucial advice to the Editorial Office. It is obvious to me as Chief Editor that using the broader competence of the whole Editorial Board, and letting many submitted manuscripts be handled by Editorial Board members with subspeciality expertise will offer very important advantages to authors and to the readers of the journal. The journal is in the fortunate position that the number of submitted manuscripts is rapidly increasing. With a system allowing the whole Editorial Board to choose referees, the number of referees will increase, decreasing the work-load of each referee, and allowing her or him to spend more time with each manuscript. This can increase the quality of the review process (Black et al. 1998). The mere fact that the Chief Editor plus at least one additional Editorial Board member will take part in the selection and publication process for many manuscripts also gives a broader distribution of both decision-making and responsibility. The closer co-operation between the Editorial Office and all Board members will thus broaden and improve the management of the journal, and will almost certainly result in a host of suggestions for further journal improvements. The Editorial Office will work to achieve this improved quality without delaying the review and publication process; rapid publication remains a high priority. Much of the communication between the Editorial Office and Acta’s Editorial Board will be handled electronically, and we will provide Editorial Board members with rapid communication to reviewers, as well as timely schedule management. I hope this new approach will make the journal more interesting and truly more useful to you, our readers. Malmö, August 2001