Reviewer reward and decreased submission to publication time: The need of the hour.

Dear Editor,

We read with interest the very informative and relevant article entitled “A holistic approach to remove the bottlenecks and to improve the quality of medical research in India” by Bhattacharya et al.[1] It underlines certain burning issues regarding contemporary Indian health research milieu. Rise of predatory publishing houses is an abominable issue, and gullible novice researchers spoil their good articles for the benefit of prevalent low-rung journals. Though there have been attempts to recognize these journals in the past like defunct Beall's list with mixed reviews,[2] there are, however, no authentic guidelines available to researchers apart from certain practical pointers suggested by WAME (World Association of Medical Editors).[3] The lack of uniform criteria adopted on various aspects of publication is an another issue rightly highlighted in the article. One important issue that fuels the growing demand of predatory journals is their shorter time to publication that indirectly reflects compromised peer review. As there are brownie points attached to number and quality of articles published by an author with subsequent benefit in promotion and recognition, there are hardly any tangible benefits reviewers get for their work let alone the recognition. It remains an unconditional help and often thankless. The best they can get is the publication of their own articles in the given journal at reduced or no cost. There is dearth of able reviewers, and their number is declining as newer generation does not see it as viable philanthropy effort due to it being no value addition to their credentials. Besides it, good journals of major associations, barring few, are overburdened by the submission coupled with quarterly or semi-annual cycle reducing the chance of timely publication. Many journals acknowledge the time to publication as a major hurdle and try their best to reduce it and feel need for the larger pool of enthusiastic and voluntary reviewers for a timely and robust peer review. It is high time the reviewers should be recognized by journals by giving them some certification or some identity numbers and the number of articles reviewed in good journals should also be given weightage in career progression. New indexation and directory of reviewers are suggested by some researchers in these directions and require global consideration.[4] A column regarding the number of reviews done for national/international journals should be made in promotion or fellowship eligibility criteria. Many good journals are adopting open peer review system that shows the whole life cycle of the article and how and by whom it was review publicly displayed. Besides it, online forum like Publon is a serving platform to give value to reviewers by recognizing their contribution by recording, verifying, and showcasing their work apart from highlighting top reviewers across categories in Global Peer Review Award.[5] Many journals acknowledge and thank their reviewers in their journal in dedicated pages. Some journals have started that reviewer reward program in which their reviewers who complete a set number of reviews get specific benefits when their own articles undergo peer review.[6] Free access to journals and discounts on books as some publishing houses offer should be norm and standard industry practice for the benefit of reviewer community.[7] The reviewers must, however, be trained in essentials of effective peer review by online education or other feasible modes before they are eligible for any reward and having a reviewer certificate should be lauded within the medical fraternity.[8] There is an another issue that we have noticed is that in most states, thesis done by postgraduate students needs to be submitted and a proof of paper publication or acceptance is must before they are eligible for their final exit exam. Despite a very good thesis, many get submitted in predatory journals for fast publication to meet deadlines. This system, apart from doing harm than any good to the precious work, is also introducing newbie researcher to those shoddy journals which may lure the researcher and the their referrals again in future. Good journals with good turnover rate of articles and shorter time frame shall go long way to curtail this problem. This is high time we review the quality reviewers and retain their interest for the greater common good. Takeaways from a good research work do not stop at teaching institutes but also percolate down to the primary care level. As indulgence in research is increasingly noted in primary care physicians and allied professionals, it becomes relevant to keep abreast of contemporary burning issues and be part of the dialogues and voice their concerns. A scientific mindset shall only enhance our outlook in routine practice to seek answers to the problems peculiar to our patients.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.