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
Opinion
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|