Peer review and Palliative Medicine : Guiding reviewers’ contributions to ensuring high quality publications

Peer review is an important, yet contested, part of the academic publishing process. It is argued that it is foundational to the process of scientific research and publication.1 Reviewers are asked to assess the quality of the research, identity potential issues or flaws and provide constructive feedback. Peer review is intended to improve the credibility, accuracy and rigour of academic research. As research can have far-reaching implications for science, individuals and society, peer review is seen as crucial to ensuring that reports of research undergo a process of quality control before they are published. There are, however, major challenges in peer review processes. Reviewers are typically not trained in how to review manuscripts. They can potentially introduce biases, fail to spot problems, make incorrect suggestions or only make a cursory assessment.2 People can be reluctant to act as peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are rarely properly acknowledged or remunerated. Reviewing tends to be an altruistic, unpaid activity done as part of the global scholarly effort rather than necessarily for individual reward.3 These issues all add delay and challenge into the publishing process. As editors of Palliative Medicine, we understand the strengths and limitations of peer review. Our aim in this editorial is not to critique the current peer review system (others have done this admirably4–6). Rather, we would like to guide reviewers, authors and readers as part of an ongoing series of editorials7 exploring issues associated with publishing processes. We want to be explicit about what we seek to publish, provide clarity as to the processes we follow and guide current and potential reviewers to perform their reviews in line with our hopes as editors.