Peer review forms the cornerstone of our scientific literature and moves our field forward through detailed review, thoughtful criticism, and assisted revision of the latest scientific advancements. At the center of the peer review process is the expert reviewer, that highly qualified, anonymous, committed individual, revered by editors and reviled by authors,1 who makes the process run. Peer review is a nearly thankless task, but one so vital to the core of the scientific method that it keeps returning as the subject of editorials.1–5
The peer-reviewed literature is flawed,6 but it remains the best source of accurate, scientifically valid information we have on which to base our practice and our next research endeavors. Beyond name recognition, history, journal rankings, and impact factors,7,8 the primary benefit peer-reviewed literature brings is derived from the input provided by the reviewer. There is simply no substitute for the expertise and viewpoint provided by anonymous review, and this necessary step continues to differentiate the best science from articles that gain publication without going through this necessary check.
Each year we pay respects to our dedicated peer reviewers who volunteer their time and expertise to make the articles published in the Journal of Refractive Surgery better. Although we value and appreciate every reviewer who assisted the journal's efforts, this year, for the first time, we are acknowledging a subset of our reviewers who went far above and beyond the peer review call. These individuals represent less than 10% of our reviewer group and were identified based on the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the reviews they provided. You can find the complete list of our reviewers in this issue, including those individuals who achieved a Silver or Gold designation for their exemplary work.
I would like to specifically recognize and thank the top 10 individuals from our list for 2018: Samuel Arba-Mosquera, Timothy J. Archer, Perry S. Binder, Daniel S. Durrie, Timo Eppig, Kenneth J. Hoffer, Stephen D. Klyce, Majid Moshirfar, Giacomo Savini, and Abhijit Sinha Roy. These individuals provided their expertise and critical commentary for more than 100 articles combined.
In another first, we have selected a “Top Reviewer” to recognize and honor an individual who made remarkable contributions. For 2018, our Top Reviewer was Majid Moshirfar, MD. Dr. Moshirfar provided detailed, pertinent commentary on more than 20 timely, detailed reviews covering a broad swath of topics. We truly appreciate the thoughtfulness and dedication he provides our profession; we are all better for his efforts.
As we look forward to 2019, we welcome all who join the ranks of reviewers and look forward to seeing who makes the Silver, Gold, and Top Reviewer list next year!
- Waring GO III, . Peer review: fearsome foe or friendly facilitator?Refract Corneal Surg. 1989;5:210–212.
- Waring GO III, . On what information do ophthalmologists base their clinical practice?J Refract Surg. 2004;20:414–416.
- Randleman JB. Keeping peer-reviewed publication relevant in the internet age. J Refract Surg. 2012;28:447–448. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20120620-01 [CrossRef]
- McLeod SD. Researchers, reviewers, and readers: the ecosystem of science in the practice of medicine. Ophthalmology. 2017;124:278–279. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.01.012 [CrossRef]
- Dupps WJ Jr, . Peer review: get involved. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:997–998. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.002 [CrossRef]
- Liesegang TJ. Peer review should continue after publication. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:359–360. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.11.015 [CrossRef]
- Dupps WJ Jr, . Impact of citation practices: beyond journal impact factors. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:1419–1421. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.07.001 [CrossRef]
- Randleman JB. The impact of the impact factor. J Refract Surg. 2015;31:648–649. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20150928-05 [CrossRef]