In praise of referees

Editorial
Reprinted from MBEC [Med Biol Eng Comp 2004 Vol 42 page 1].

Where would we be without our referees? Peer reviewed journals like Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing would not exist. At least they would not exist with their reputation for quality. Even the best authors need someone who can review their work independently, and I can tell you that authors are genuinely grateful for any constructive feedback. Most authors ask their colleagues to have a look at their papers, but unfortunately the level of independent criticism generally does not reach the level of a referee. Independence and the ability to stand back are the keys to valuable refereeing.

So no matter how frustrated we at the Editorial Office might be with some of our delayed responses, we are truly grateful for the constructive comments we receive. However, I am conscious that we impose a load on our referees. If this was their only load, it might be acceptable, but referees are continually bombarded by requests from all sides.

I often think about how we might make the process more efficient for our referees. Your time is important and we should not misuse it. Send us your referee comments in any way which is easy for you. There is no need to fit it on our form, although the information requested on the form will help us. You should not struggle with a paper. If it is a struggle, tell me, and a detailed response may not be needed. In any case, you should never need to give a highly detailed response, but if you can, the authors will find it useful. On the question of English style, the editorial office will put that right as long as the scientific meaning is clear.

Always remember that there will be more than one referee, and if you cannot referee the whole paper, give us some comments and tell us what you have considered. Often such overview comments are the most useful. If you have been through the paper once, which most referees do fairly quickly, we much prefer general comments which will complement those from other referees, rather than delaying your response for that ideal report.

For the vast majority of papers, referees agree, even if they use different words. If they do not agree, I will need more information, and may contact our referees again. These differences are usually due to the emphasis given to various areas of a paper.

We always try to give referees papers which are relevant to their expertise, but if we get this wrong please tell us, and do keep us up-to-date about your current expertise. Also, tell us about younger researchers who in my experience provide superb, thoughtful and accurate reviews.

Finally, if you are an author, please make life easy for our referees by writing a clear, concise paper; that is structured in a traditional manner (Murray 2001). A poor structure makes it difficult for referees to know precisely how you have carried out your work and what you have achieved.

Moving on briefly to another matter, I need to inform you that Dr Steven Smye has agreed to become Deputy Editor, and so from time to time you may hear from Steve. We welcome him to our editorial team. He is here to help you.

From all at our editorial office we wish you a successful, happy and peaceful year, and without any hesitation I send all our referees my sincere thanks.

Murray, A. (2001); 'On becoming a virtual editor', Med. Biol. Eng. Comput., 39, p. 1

Alan Murray
Editor in Chief