Reviewer responsibility

Peer review is the backbone of scientific publishing and is responsible for the high quality of articles in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Reviewers donate their time for this altruistic activity and receive little acknowledgement. They are selected on the basis of their recognized expertise involving the subject of the manuscript. This process of peer review involves certain responsibilities, and as pointed out by Minion et al in the “Ethics Column” of this issue, has the potential to raise “academic” conflicts of interest. The responsibilities of peer review are the subject of this editorial.

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal for possible publication are the intellectual property of the authors and as such must be treated in a confidential manner. Reviewer invitations include the “Abstract” of the manuscript so that reviewers can decide whether the topic fits their expertise and interests. Only if reviewers agree to perform a review do they gain access to the entire manuscript, and they should not distribute it to others for their opinion without the expressed consent of the editors. After reviews are completed and the editors make an initial decision, the manuscript is no longer available electronically to the reviewers, and reviewers should dispose of any printed copy.

Reviewers gain early access to new scientific information, which is a well-recognized benefit of participating in the peer review process. As pointed out by Minion et al, however, it is an absolute responsibility of reviewers not to take advantage of this early access to new scientific information in an unethical manner.

Unethical behavior could include attempting to delay or prevent publication of an article competitive with the reviewer’s own work or using new scientific information gained from the review to alter the reviewer’s own research without the expressed permission of the senior author of the manuscript under review and without acknowledging the source of this material. A single reviewer can seldom control the outcome of a manuscript because multiple reviewers are used. An inappropriately negative review that contrasts with favorable comments by the other reviewers can usually be easily detected by the editors. In addition, the “institutional memory” of the editorial process of the Journal usually detects the use of another author’s material without appropriate acknowledgment. Although the editors and members of the editorial board review a large number of manuscripts, this is a small scientific community whose collective memory of scientific information is quite good. Finally, authors are given opportunity to specify reviewers who would be inappropriate by identifying their potential conflict of interest.

It is not possible, however, to prevent reviewers from potentially benefiting inappropriately from information gained from the peer review process during the 4 to 5 months before publication of a manuscript. Proper behavior in this area depends to a large part on a strict honor code and the ethical values of the individual reviewer. If new information obtained by a reviewer during the review of a manuscript significantly alters the direction of a research project or the content of a manuscript in progress, he or she must acknowledge the source. In the event that this information has not yet been published, the reviewer should contact the senior author and ask for permission to cite specific information obtained from the review as a personal communication from the author.

In the past, the Journal has asked reviewers to decline reviews if they perceived a conflict of interest, either because of their personal relationship with the authors or because of competitive research being performed. In the future, we will make this process more overt by requiring reviewers to acknowledge in writing that they do not have a conflict of interest with the authors or a competitive research interest. This could include having previously worked with or trained an author, or having ongoing research that might represent a conflict of interest, as defined above. An obvious conflict would be any personal financial interest that might be affected by the publication decision.

Readers and authors benefit from the peer review process, and we believe that the above principles will continue to serve the Journal well.