Beyond the consulting room: intuition and intersubjectivity in journal peer review

Abstract

Imagine for a moment that you have been asked to review a manuscript for a peer reviewed psychiatric journal. The manuscript reports the results of a randomised trial of a new anti-depressant. What approach would you take? What principles would you apply? Perhaps, in thinking through your approach, you considered the importance of disinterestedness, and of the need to apply the principles of critical appraisal as set out in the many guidelines available on evaluating clinical research. Perhaps, in other words, you considered the need to be as “scientific” as possible in your approach to the review. This attitude would be pleasing to most journal editors, who would likely subscribe to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) which state that [1]: Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific process. Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff. Peer review can therefore be viewed as an important extension of the scientific process. At first glance this might appear to be a perfectly appropriate and realistic approach. After all, you are a scientist and you are reviewing a scientific manuscript, so it seems only reasonable that your approach to the review should be scientific too. But is it really so straightforward? Is a “scientific” approach to peer review really achievable? And even if it is achievable, is it necessarily desirable?