Microsoft Word - Vieira Editorial 2016.docx


	
  

Vol	
  4,	
  No	
  1	
  (2016)	
  
ISSN	
  2167-­‐8677	
  (online)	
  

DOI	
  10.5195/d3000.2016.65	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

http://dentistry3000.pitt.edu	
  

	
   New	
  articles	
  in	
  this	
  journal	
  are	
  licensed	
  under	
  a	
  Creative	
  Commons	
  Attribution	
  4.0	
  United	
  States	
  License.	
  

	
  
This	
  journal	
  is	
  published	
  by	
  the	
  University	
  Library	
  System,	
  University	
  of	
  Pittsburgh	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  its	
  D-­‐Scribe	
  Digital	
  Publishing	
  Program	
  and	
  is	
  cosponored	
  
by	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  Pittsburgh	
  Press.	
  

	
  

The	
  Issue	
  of	
  Peer-­‐Review	
  
Alexandre	
  Rezende	
  Vieira	
  
	
  
Editor	
  in	
  Chief	
  
Department	
  of	
  Oral	
  Biology,	
  University	
  of	
  Pi4sburgh	
  School	
  of	
  Dental	
  Medicine,	
  Pi%sburgh	
  PA,	
  USA	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Cita%on:	
  Vieira	
  AR.	
  (2016)	
  The	
  Issue	
  of	
  Peer	
  Re-­‐
view.	
  Den$stry	
  3000.	
  1:a001	
  
doi:10.5195/d3000.2016.65	
  
Received:	
  November	
  30,	
  2016	
  
Accepted:	
  	
  December	
  12,	
  2016	
  
Published:	
  	
  December	
  14,	
  2016	
  
Copyright:	
  ©2016	
  Vieira	
  AR.	
  This	
   is	
  an	
  open	
  ac-­‐
cess	
  ar!cle	
   licensed	
  under	
  a	
  Crea!ve	
  Commons	
  
A"ribu%on	
  Work	
  4.0	
  United	
  States	
  License.	
  
Email:	
  arv11@pi(.edu

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  It	
  is	
  widely	
  accepted	
  that	
  peer-­‐
review	
  is	
  the	
  process	
  that	
  validates	
  
the	
  published	
  scientific	
  literature.	
  
However,	
  it	
  is	
  known	
  to	
  be	
  incon-­‐
sistent,	
  biased,	
  onerous,	
  slow,	
  and	
  
expensive.	
  The	
  typical	
  journal,	
  such	
  
as	
  Dentistry	
  3000,	
  follows	
  these	
  
common	
  steps:	
  

1. The	
  editor,	
  upon	
  receiving	
  a	
  
manuscript	
  submission,	
  will	
  
decide	
  if	
  the	
  paper	
  should	
  be	
  
peer-­‐reviewed.	
  If	
  the	
  decision	
  
is	
  “no,”	
  the	
  editor	
  will	
  reject	
  
the	
  paper.	
  If	
  the	
  decision	
  is	
  yes,	
  
the	
  process	
  of	
  inviting	
  individ-­‐
uals	
  to	
  revise	
  the	
  manuscript	
  
begins.’	
  

2. The	
  peer-­‐reviewers	
  provide	
  a	
  
general	
  impression	
  about	
  the	
  
paper.	
  Typically,	
  these	
  include	
  
suggestions	
  to	
  revise	
  the	
  paper	
  
and	
  resubmit.	
  	
  

3. The	
  editor	
  receives	
  from	
  the	
  
authors	
  a	
  revised	
  version	
  of	
  
the	
  manuscript	
  and	
  he-­‐she	
  will	
  

decide	
  if	
  the	
  new	
  version	
  is	
  ac-­‐
ceptable	
  or	
  not,	
  and	
  often	
  will	
  
send	
  it	
  to	
  peer-­‐review	
  again,	
  
trying	
  to	
  have	
  the	
  same	
  re-­‐
viewers	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  revised	
  
manuscript.	
  This	
  process	
  can	
  
have	
  multiple	
  iterations	
  with	
  
the	
  authors.	
  

This	
  peer-­‐review	
  process	
  gives	
  
credibility	
  to	
  publications	
  and	
  is	
  not	
  
only	
  used	
  for	
  defining	
  which	
  papers	
  
should	
  be	
  published,	
  but	
  also	
  for	
  
making	
  decisions	
  on	
  funding	
  of	
  re-­‐
search	
  projects.	
  	
  Additionally,	
  jour-­‐
nals	
  quite	
  often	
  suggest	
  to	
  authors	
  
their	
  acceptance	
  rates,	
  some	
  proud	
  
to	
  reject	
  60%	
  or	
  more	
  of	
  the	
  sub-­‐
missions	
  without	
  even	
  sending	
  to	
  
peer-­‐review.	
  	
  Journals	
  define	
  them-­‐
selves,	
  not	
  only	
  thematically,	
  but	
  
also	
  on	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  papers	
  they	
  
publish.	
  Many	
  journals	
  emphasize	
  
originality	
  and	
  positive	
  results.	
  It	
  is	
  
more	
  difficult	
  to	
  publish	
  the	
  results	
  
of	
  a	
  well-­‐designed	
  clinical	
  trial	
  
when	
  they	
  are	
  negative.	
  	
  

Therefore,	
  the	
  challenge	
  is	
  in	
  
how	
  to	
  improve	
  the	
  peer-­‐review	
  
process.	
  Dentistry	
  3000	
  is	
  trying	
  to	
  
address	
  that	
  by	
  increasing	
  con-­‐
sistency	
  among	
  reviews	
  and	
  by	
  pub-­‐
lishing	
  independently	
  from	
  the	
  au-­‐
thors	
  and	
  their	
  affiliations.	
  Dentistry	
  
3000	
  has	
  published	
  close	
  to	
  70%	
  of	
  
its	
  submissions.	
  The	
  main	
  goal	
  is	
  to	
  
disseminate	
  information,	
  and	
  pub-­‐
lish	
  in	
  all	
  areas	
  and	
  topics	
  relevant	
  
to	
  dental,	
  oral	
  and	
  craniofacial	
  re-­‐
search.	
  Authors	
  are	
  not	
  charged	
  
publication	
  fees.	
  	
  Once	
  there	
  is	
  
enough	
  material,	
  Dentistry	
  3000’s	
  
contents	
  will	
  be	
  listed	
  in	
  PubMed.	
  In	
  
the	
  future,	
  scientific	
  publications	
  
will	
  receive	
  bigger	
  emphasis	
  on	
  re-­‐
actions	
  to	
  papers	
  after	
  publishing,	
  
rather	
  than	
  the	
  delayed	
  peer-­‐review	
  
process,	
  which	
  could	
  be	
  stream-­‐
lined	
  to	
  be	
  less	
  demanding,	
  since	
  
this	
  process	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  
trust.	
  Alternatives	
  such	
  as	
  evaluat-­‐
ing	
  raw	
  data	
  are	
  too	
  demanding	
  and	
  
time	
  consuming	
  to	
  be	
  feasible.