Premium
Peer review
Author(s) -
Baker Gordon J.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
veterinary record
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.261
H-Index - 99
eISSN - 2042-7670
pISSN - 0042-4900
DOI - 10.1136/vr.j4550
Subject(s) - citation , library science , computer science
I FOUND the recent comment on peer review of interest (VR, September 23, 2017, vol 181, p 304). I have for some time believed that all articles submitted for review in our professional journals should be reviewed anonymously, that is, the authors and the site should be redacted before examination by the peer reviewer. This system would eliminate any potential personal conflict between authors and the reviewers. I believe that such a system would strengthen the quality of the review process. In addition, I would like to comment on the aim of providing studies truly based on evidence-based medicine results. It sounds fine, but in any analysis of the results of clinical studies it is easy to see that so called ‘controls’ are biased. Very few studies compare results from surgical intervention versus no treatments, for example, removal of fetlock osteochondral fragments and analysis of post-treatment or untreated horses. The problem is that it is not possible to have two identical cohorts for comparison as there are too many variables in any selection process. I encourage discussion on these topics with interest. Gordon J. Baker, Old School House, Stony Lane, Bobbingworth, Ongar, Essex CM5 0LZ e-mail: g-baker@illinois.edu