R Peer Review of Statistics in Surgical Research: Identify The X-Factor or Toss a Coin!

Lupine Publishers Group

Lupine Publishers

  Submit Manuscript

Advancements in Cardiology Research & Reports

Opinion(ISSN: 2770-5447)

Peer Review of Statistics in Surgical Research: Identify The X-Factor or Toss a Coin!

Volume 2 - Issue 1

Ahmed N Ghanem*

Received: April 03, 2019;   Published: April 17, 2019

DOI: 10.32474/ACR.2018.01.000131

Full Text PDF

To view the Full Article   Peer-reviewed Article PDF


Professor Peter Bacchetti’s excellent article [1], highlighting “the other problem of peer review of finding flaws that are not really there based on unfounded statistical criticism, and its demoralizing effect on authors”. I wish to add some thoughts to the debated issues. Professor David Horrobin’s original classics on the subject [2,3]. have not yet been surpassed. It was updated recently [4] and prompted some contributory thoughts [5]. Having enough experience as author of reject articles and some as peer reviewer, I find the most devastating effect to author’s morale is making no comment, giving no reason for rejection or not replying all. The BMJ is guilty on this account as an article of mine was rejected that was accepted elsewhere after minor editing [6]. The BMJ, however, is in the good company of most biomedical journals who apply the COPE rules. The article lacked statistics of any kind that perhaps might be one of the reasons it was disliked at BMJ. To Editors’ credit, however, it took about a month to say ‘No’ that caused no momentum loss, unlike other Journals who reach the same verdict on other articles after 6 months or a year that drag another year or two before the author could recover and gather enough time, interest and energy to face the damn thing again. One subtle aim of that article [6], mentioned to BMJ Editors, was an attempt to say that “there is science and in particular evidence based medicine without statistics”.

Opinion| References|