How do colleagues feel about a journal that refuses to divulge its reviewing procedures? I have just encountered such a situation in which the editor refused to describe whether or not peers are used in reviewing submitted material. My impression is that virtually all journals today are more than happy to make public their procedures.

Nick Black
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

___________________________

How odd! As I'm naturally rather suspicious, I'd be wondering what they are trying to hide—are the articles reviewed at all by anyone qualified to do so?!

Surely part of the COPE and ICJME guidelines cover this—requiring journals to be transparent about their review process and editorial processes in general?

Deborah Glover
Editor, JWC

___________________________

Our Department has a minimal requirement for obtaining the PhD that a candidate have accepted for publication a first-authored, peer-reviewed article. Obviously we would have to disallow a journal that refuses to divulge its review process, and I wonder how anyone could take them seriously?

John Rodgers

___________________________

My initial reaction is that I would be hesitant, as an author, to submit something to that journal. But there are several hypothetical explanations.

1. The Editor is confusing protection of reviewer confidentiality with protection of the process. The latter is unwarranted.
2. The Editor uses a small group who make all the decisions and doesn't want this known.
3. The Editor runs it all alone (he's the only peer of the realm).
4. It really is not a peer-reviewed journal.

None of these is a satisfactory reason to refuse to describe the process.

Rich Rothenberg

___________________________

It seems strange to me that an Editor would not wish to disclose their peer-review. This then brings me to think that perhaps the editor really does not understand what he or she is being asked to describe. Could this be possible? Yes, I think so. One of my senior professors at my medical school always says that our journal is soon to become a peer review journal. What he actually means is that we were discussing on how to be indexed on MEDLINE/PUBMED. Our journal is peer-reviewed but not as yet indexed in MEDLINE. So, I can still entertain the idea that the editor who is refusing disclosure of peer review may not know what it means, and possibly that journal is unlikely to be on MEDLINE; otherwise, they would have disclosed their peer-review profess.

Adamson Muula
Malawi Medical Journal

___________________________

Nick Black asked, "How do colleagues feel about a journal that refuses to divulge its reviewing procedures?"

How do colleagues feel about a publisher that refuses to identify the editor-in-chief of a journal? The journal is said to be peer-reviewed on its website and there is a list of names of editorial board members, but no Editor in Chief is identified anywhere. E-mails to the publisher asking who the E-in-C is have gone unanswered.

Authors should indeed be cautious about submitting their work to journals that do not comply with ICMJE guidelines regarding accountability and good editorial practice.

Karen Shashok
Translator and Editorial Consultant
Granada, Spain

___________________________

A journal should always allow one to read or know about the peer review process and should be easy for the authors to know their paper and how its been reviewed. One such editorial can be seen in our publication revealing clear information on peer review process: http://www.phcog.net/phcog_mag2/editorial.pdf

Mueen Ahmed K K
Associate Editor, Phcog Mag (http://www.phcog.net/phcogmag/)

___________________________

I find this situation to be absurd. A journal which hides its procedures is not worth its salt and authors should be deeply suspicious. I agree with Rich's comments regarding the possibilities but suspect the journal may not quite be peer-reviewed.

Is this journal indexed in Medline? Is it a new Journal?

Riaz Agha
Managing and Executive Editor, International Journal of Surgery

___________________________