Critiquing is hard. Hard to do. Hard to hear. We all like positive feedback when it confirms that we have done a great job, accomplished something, or met a goal. Still, when the feedback is not what we expected, it can be difficult to take. We all recognize that feedback should not be personalized. The individual offering a critique is commenting on the work and not the person who performed the work. But after many arduous hours toiling away on a project, trying our best to get things right, a negative comment can throw some of us into a tailspin. Try to remember that it is a difficult job to assess anyone's work and provide information designed to make it better. Helping authors improve their work is the job of a journal reviewer.
By objectively assessing an article within the framework of the current information, exposing areas that need clarification, and evaluating the methodology reviewers enhance the author's message. Researchers build the structure for the advancement of medical science through investigation, while reviewers impartially offer constructive advice to improve the quality of the work in the realization of the author's goals. This is the essence of peer review. It might be more appropriate to think of peer review as a partnership between the authors and reviewers in pursuit of evidence you can trust. Reviewers help researchers grow. By fostering the expansion of knowledge, journal reviewers are the unsung heroes of science.
This awesome responsibility is a lot to ask of a volunteer. Independent, blinded assessment of research is truly altruistic, especially considering the time and effort it takes to properly perform a review. Above and beyond their usual busy workload, reviewers carefully read the article, usually several times, perhaps looking up references or background information, applaud the positive aspects of the work, and provide a constructive, balanced critique for what requires further clarification. Why do it? Speaking for myself, I find that reviewing is a deeply gratifying learning experience. I get to read cutting-edge work in a field, discover novel methods for investigating research questions, and get exposure to new references. As the review is returned to the authors, it's a bonus to read the comments from the other reviewers and editors. I consider reviewing a service to the profession, although I seem to get tremendous benefits.
Lately, the peer-review process has been in the news. The quest to understand SARS-CoV-2 and find therapeutics and vaccines for coronavirus disease has led to the appearance of prepublished research. Unfortunately, without the benefit of peer review, the findings from some investigations must be walked back once the review process is complete. We see in real time the importance of scrutiny by reviewers who provide advice assisting researchers to provide boundaries to their work, which facilitates trust in their findings.
Peer review is not perfect. It increases the time from submission to publication. It does not catch all weaknesses. It can be difficult to find adequate numbers of qualified reviewers. Yet, peer review remains the foundation of scholarly publication firmly entrenched in the dynamic process of ensuring quality and integrity in scholarly communications because it is the best process we have to determine the validity of research.
Next time you read your manuscript reviews, or someone offers you an appraisal of your work, remember that the feedback comes from a place of caring about the end product. In this last issue of 2020, it is an honor to thank the dedicated reviewers for the Journal of Women's Health Physical Therapy.
-Cynthia M. Chiarello, PT, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Highlights in This Issue:
In this issue, we have a thought-provoking mix of research exemplifying various aspects of women's and pelvic health. Drs Siracusa and Gray lead us off with a clinical commentary and video abstract detailing fundamental background and the multisystem sequelae of COVID-19, with implications that respiratory issues can have on pelvic floor functioning for pelvic health therapists with advice for all physical therapists. In a retrospective analysis of medical records, Martins and colleagues present the clinical characteristics and determinants of obstetric palsy among patients with obstetric fistula. Dr Boissonnault and associates surveyed the chief delegates of the International Organization of Physical Therapists in Pelvic and Women's Health from 30 countries regarding their impressions of professional focus and practice. Drs Maher and Iberle evaluated the concurrent validity of external coccyx motion to transabdominal ultrasound imaging to examine pelvic floor muscle function. The issue closes with an interesting study from Dr Hartigan's group, who examined hip angles and moments at weight acceptance with motion analysis in women with and without stress urinary incontinence.