Do case reports warrant peer review?
Case reports constitute a popular form of veterinary and medical scientific literature. Recently, journals dedicated to publishing case reports have proliferated; more than 160 such journals exist in medicine and at least three exist for veterinary medicine (Veterinary Record Open, Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open Reports, Case Reports in Veterinary Medicine).
Case reports fall within the lower levels of evidence on the evidence hierarchy. Recently, one author criticized the field of small animal theriogenology for relying almost exclusively on case reports for some relatively common diseases. However, various authors have argued that case reports can provide useful information for clinicians. One study suggested that some 25% of case reports and case series published in a high-impact medical journal (Lancet) resulted in subsequent, larger studies. Reporting guidelines for case reports exist, providing a checklist for authors to ensure that they include important information.
The volume of scientific literature is growing – some have described this as a ‘paper glut’. Most of this requires peer review. Multiple editorials have claimed that successfully recruiting critical and incisive reviewers is increasingly difficult, although few studies have evaluated these claims. The average number of reviewer invitations sent by journals to garner the required number of reviewers has increased for several scientific journals, as has the number of manuscripts requiring >8 reviewer invitations. Conversely, the median frequency of reviewers accepting invitations to review has dropped. However, not all editors accept the premise that reviewers are becoming more scarce. Reasons that reviewers give for declining an invitation to review include ‘lack of time’, ‘excessive number of invitations’, ‘lack of expertise in the area of the manuscript’, ‘conflicts of interest’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘quality of the study’. Consequently, editors could view reviewers as a scarce and valuable resource, to be preserved and utilized where most appropriate. In essence, they could view the issue as a cost-benefit economic analysis. Similarly, reviewers who feel that they receive too many requests can do a cost-benefit analysis, based on the ‘return on investment’ for doing any particular review. Finally, authors themselves could determine whether a case report positively affects metrics that institutional administrators might use to determine promotion or reward.
Do case reports provide sufficient scientific content to justify the expense of precious reviewer time and energy, or should they be published without review? Do they allow the reviewer to do more than mostly critique the style, language and grammar? Do they benefit most readers of a journal? How do they affect journal-associated and author-associated metrics? If they do not warrant review, what alternatives exist?
Author: Mark Rishniw.
Full article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2020.105517
