Peer review is an integral, though underappreciated, aspect of science. Peer review ensures that basic ethics and research standards are met, and to enhance the scientific literature. At JNPT, we instruct reviewers that "the purpose of the review is to provide expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their manuscripts so that they will be acceptable for publication in JNPT." In the larger picture of neurologic physical therapy science peer review helps shape the science and, in turn, influences clinical practice when research is translated to the clinic. Peer review plays a pivotal role in what ideas are published, research funding, and career progress.

Although peer review seems commonplace now, this was not always the case. It is believed that peer review was first introduced in the early 1700s in 2 society journals: Royal Society of Edinburgh and Royal Society of London: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.1 However, it was not until the mid-1900s that it was widely implemented in scientific journals. Science and JAMA began using peer review in 1940 and The Lancet not until 1976.1 Advances in technology also played a critical role in the adoption of peer review. The invention and wide use of the Xerox photocopier in the late 1950s facilitated the dissemination of manuscripts for peer review, making it easier to implement.1

Peer reviewers are asked to take on this role often with little support or recognition for their work. It can take up to 3 to 5 hours to perform an effective review of a manuscript, and peer reviewers often receive little training. However, performing peer review has its benefits. Peer reviewers become better authors and scientists through the process, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of their scientific work being published. Peer reviewers provide an important service to the profession and can impact clinical care.2

The peer review process is not perfect, and there is limited research on its effectiveness. In some instances, it can become a bottleneck in the dissemination process. There is also the potential for bias, reviews may not be constructive, and plagiarism and conflicts of interest may occur.3-5JNPT uses a double-blind review process in which neither the authors nor the reviewers know who the others are. Although maintaining the double-blind process can be challenging in the relatively small community of neurologic physical therapy, this process may reduce bias.6

We are fortunate to have a community of reviewers, Editorial Board members, and Associate Editors who provide this service to JNPT and the broader clinical and scientific communities. Please review our list of over 150 individuals who served in these roles this past year and thank them. I would especially like to thank Drs. Catherine Lang and Sandra Billinger. Dr. Billinger is stepping down from her long-time role as an Editorial Board member, and Dr. Catherine Lang is transitioning from an Associate Editor to an Editorial Board member after having served in this role since 2009. In my short time as the Editor-in-Chief, their knowledge and expertise have been invaluable. We rely on all of these individuals' commitment, expertise, and strong ethical behaviors to advance the practice and science of neurologic physical therapy.

REFERENCES