Editorial: Enhancing the Quality of Dialogue Among Editors, Authors, and Reviewers in Editorial Review

The purpose of this editorial is to stimulate authors, reviewers, and editors to consider ways to create a more effective collective dialogue in manuscript review.

Abstract

As I reflect on my years of editorship of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) and our work together, I’m very proud of our collaboration and collective accomplishments as an editorial team. For the most part, I believe we have delivered prompt, high-quality reviews that have improved the quality of the published research in JPP. Many authors have commented on the quality and helpfulness of the reviews they have received from JPP. That said, all reviews and editorial decisions are done by human beings. Hence, they remain imperfect. For this reason, in the spirit of continuous quality improvement, I believe it is important for us to work together to improve our review process. Previous editorials focused on improving content of reviews (Drotar, 2009) as well as the efficiency of reviews and reducing their burden on authors (Drotar, 2011). Some areas continue to require our attention and are the focus of this editorial. For example, some authors and associate editors remain concerned about the length and unnecessary detail of reviews. In addition, the quality of the dialogue that occurs among authors, reviewers, and editors in the context of manuscript review can be enhanced. The importance of developing and sustaining an effective dialogue among authors, reviewers, and managing editors is based on the following assumption: respectful dialogue and consideration of discrepant opinions in scientific review will improve the review process, better serve one of our most important consumer groups (i.e., authors), and ultimately enhance the quality of published science. On the other hand, to the extent that dialogue among authors, reviewers, and editors is confusing and/ or strained, the quality of the editorial process and published science can suffer. The purpose of this editorial is to stimulate authors, reviewers, and editors to consider ways to create a more effective collective dialogue in manuscript review.