new england journal of medicine submission

The Unacceptable Delay in Peer Review: A Call for Transparency and Accountability

For the past year, my manuscript has been under review by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) without any feedback or progress report. The lack of transparency and accountability in the peer-review process is unacceptable and highlights the need for change.

As an author who has experienced firsthand the frustration and disappointment of a lengthy peer-review process, I understand the importance of clear communication and timely feedback from editors and reviewers. Unfortunately, my experience with NEJM has been far from satisfactory. The review process took 18 months to complete, and despite multiple requests for updates, I received no response.

This lack of professionalism and oversight is not unique to NEJM. In another instance, I had a manuscript rejected by Science and Engineering Ethics (SEE) in just eight hours. This raises questions about the thoroughness and fairness of the peer-review process in such journals.

It is essential that we transition to an open peer review system, similar to f1000Research, where authors can access reviews and feedback in real-time. This would promote maximum accountability and transparency, allowing authors to track the progress of their manuscripts and identify any potential issues early on.

To achieve this, I propose a double-blind or triple-blind submission process, where editors, reviewers, and authors remain anonymous until the final acceptance or rejection decision is made. This approach would ensure that the peer-review process is fair, transparent, and unbiased.

The NEJM's editor-in-chief is a renowned medical historian, prominent physician, and scholar of scientific writing in medicine, which raises questions about his ethics given the lack of transparency and accountability in the review process. Furthermore, the journal's acceptance rate is relatively low, which may contribute to the lengthy review times.

In contrast, I have experienced instances where manuscripts were accepted within a short duration, including one that was published online just three weeks after acceptance. This highlights the importance of a fair and transparent peer-review process, as well as the need for authors to be aware of the journal's review policies and timelines.

It is also important to recognize that internal blinded reviews are still reviews, and editors should provide timely feedback to authors regardless of whether they are internal or external reviewers.

The NEJM submission experience has been disappointing, but it has also sparked a necessary conversation about the importance of transparency and accountability in peer review. As an academic community, we must work together to promote fair, transparent, and unbiased processes that support the advancement of scientific knowledge.

New england journal of medicine submission