Re: Journal standards

Authors: Wilson PR
Publication: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp 249, Oct 2003
Publisher: Taylor and Francis

Animal type: General
Subject Terms: Education/communication, Veterinary profession
Article class: Correspondence

---

Abstract: I refer to the correspondence by Dr Jackson (2003) in the August 2003 issue of the New Zealand Veterinary Journal, regarding citation of articles published in non-peer reviewed publications in this journal.
Firstly, it should be noted that the Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production are considered to be peer reviewed, in contrast to the reference in the letter.
There is no question that there was a relatively high proportion of citations of non-peer reviewed literature in the deer reviews that Dr Jackson referred to. The percentages were 7, 8, 13, 23, 27 and 28. By comparison, papers, which included one review, in the issue containing Dr Jackson’s letter contained 0, 0, 5, 9, 10, 18 and 20% non-peer reviewed citations. The citation of non-peer reviewed papers is broader than for deer science alone.
A careful analysis of the non-peer reviewed papers cited in the December 2002 feature issue of the New Zealand Veterinary Journal on advances in the health and welfare of farmed deer showed that some papers in question contained relevant data and were not of a nature that would appear in a refereed journal. Other papers contained first reports of data subsequently published in peer-reviewed literature, also cited. Still others were short case reports of relevance to the reviews. Frequently, the non-peer reviewed versions allowed discussion and perspectives not normally fitting with the convention of refereed publications.
The papers that Dr Jackson referred to were commissioned to be comprehensive reviews of the literature on those topics and contained 36 (Barry et al 2002), 48 (Grace and Wilson 2002), 65 (Wilson and Stafford), 68 (Walsh and Wilson 2002b), 82 (Walsh and Wilson 2002a), and 99 (Pollard and Wilson 2002) references. The paper with the highest proportion (38%) of non-peer reviewed references (Wilson and Stafford 2002) was on welfare of farmed deer in New Zealand in relation to velvet antler removal. Of more importance, and acknowledged by Dr Jackson, is that this paper, in particular, deliberately and specifically highlighted that a high proportion of published material about velvet antler removal was in non-peer reviewed form. I quote from that paper, “…appropriate analysis, peer review and publication in the scientific arena are criteria which are arguably critical to defensibility of animal welfare practices based on science”. This acknowledges existence of the information, while encouraging the reader to judge its scientific robustness.
In part, I share Dr Jackson’s concern about the advisability or otherwise of citation of non-peer reviewed papers. I also share the concern that some authors in the deer research arena publish some material in conference proceedings to the exclusion of refereed publications. While that may diminish the scientific standing of the work, it cannot be interpreted that all non-peer-reviewed publications lack scientific validity. Conversely, proceedings provide an essential vehicle for publication of observations by practitioners and others with a wealth of innovation and relevant knowledge and experience, in a format that allows some recognition without the rigorous process of peer review that discourages many from publication or presentation. Authors of reviews have a particular responsibility to carefully and critically analyse data from non-peer reviewed publications, acknowledging shortcomings as appropriate, or even selecting only those that are of sufficient quality to warrant citation.
In essence, Dr Jackson’s letter is a reminder that all readers of scientific articles should view them with appropriate diligence and professionalism by maintaining enquiry into the nature of what is written and its source, as displayed in the lists of references. This should be in the same manner that any scientific paper is evaluated for independence, research method, design and analysis along with presentation and interpretation of results. The transparency and credibility of science is at stake. Thus it is the responsibility not only of the author, reviewers and editor of the paper, but also the reader to critically analyse and interpret even peer-reviewed publications.
Thus, the author of a review should be permitted discretion to include such material, provided it is presented openly and interpreted appropriately. The final safeguard is that the reviews themselves are subject to the same peer review and editorial input as any peer-reviewed research publication.

---