The review process

Canadian Journal of Surgery 1996; 39: 180

A manuscript submitted to the Canadian Journal of Surgery is evaluated according to three categories by three reviewers who are considered to have a particular interest in or knowledge of the subject.

1. Organization and logic. Has the author identified the objective and has it been fulfilled? Are the results reliable? Are the conclusions supported by the data?
2. Content. Are the methods appropriate and the observations precise and reliable? Is the illustrative material clear and well integrated with the text? Is the study important to patient care, postgraduate education or research? Is the bibliography adequate?
3. Appropriateness. Is the subject area appropriate for the Journal's readership? Should the manuscript be published irrespective of conclusions reached on categories 1 and 2.

In the absence of egregious errors or a "smoking gun," we believe that revision of borderline manuscripts is better than outright rejection. The authors seem to agree. In almost all instances, they thank us for helping them improve their manuscripts, which may have been revised a number of times. This policy helps to broaden our reviewer and contributor base and involves the reviewers in the substantive editing of an article. Occasionally, when there is clear disagreement on the conclusions or the validity of a manuscript, the opposing viewpoint is presented in an accompanying editorial. Or an editorial may serve to enhance the visibility of an article considered to be of particular importance.

To provide rapid turnaround, reviewers are expected to return their comments within 3 weeks. The role of reviewer can be demanding, and we appreciate our reviewers' contributions to the quality of the Journal. The exercise, however, can have its own rewards, and I for one have generally found the process educational and gratifying.