The engine of high quality peer review fuels authors’ careers
and prestige, successful applications for future research support, and ultimately
moves forward the field. The associate editor (AED) of a scientific journal is therefore
entrusted with the important responsibility of ensuring high quality peer
review of manuscripts submitted to the respective journal. There is an
expectation that the AEDs will carefully choose the reviewers that will provide
accurate technical appraisal of the work. This is especially important when
faced with increasing multidisciplinary scientific reports. The AEDs should
themselves appraise the manuscript while balancing reviewers’ comments and
communicate clearly and timely what additional work is reasonably necessary to
elevate the report to be accepted for publication, or why the work may not be
suited for the respective journal. In this age of juggling multiple
responsibilities during an ever-diminishing available time, there is a risk of
erosion of the quality of work that the AED is expected to do. All too often,
as authors or reviewers of manuscripts, we note that AED decisions are the
rubberstamp of increasingly frustrated or hurried reviewers, or they follow the
path of least resistance to a quick and not necessarily fair decision. Such
habits erode the trust in the effectiveness of the current peer review
processes and threaten the engine of the scientific progress. Our editorial
team at AJP-Lung is striving to abide by the important principles of high
quality peer review. We believe that this purposeful work is linked to the
increase in the number of manuscripts we are receiving for peer review and will
translate in the progress of our field.
Irina Petrache, MD
Associate Editor, AJP Lung
