Survey of challenges and insights into the peer review process in anesthesiology and pain journals: An editorial perspective

Background:Peer review has been the cornerstone of academic publishing for nearly 400 years, serving as a critical gatekeeping mechanism for new knowledge. However, it faces significant criticisms, including reviewer fatigue, superficial evaluations, and potential biases. This study aims to explore the peer review process within anesthesiology and pain medicine journals from the editors' perspectives, focusing on criteria for selecting reviewers and managing divergences between peer reviewers and authors.Methods:We conducted an online survey targeting editors in anesthesiology and pain medicine journals listed in the Scopus database. A total of 2083 unique editors were identified, and invitations to participate were sent via email, supplemented by reminders. The survey consisted of 27 questions regarding editorial roles, reviewer selection, and challenges in the peer review process.Results:A total of 207 editors entered the final analysis (9.9% of the sample). The survey revealed that most editors prioritize familiarity with reviewers' expertise over diversity of perspectives. A notable 61.8% of editors reported moderate workloads, yet challenges such as securing qualified reviewers and managing reviewer burnout were prevalent. While 55.8% expressed satisfaction with the current system, 69.9% identified a need for better reviewer training, and 8.3% suggested compensating reviewers as a potential enhancement to the process.Conclusions:Our findings highlight significant strengths and weaknesses in the peer review process for anesthesiology and pain medicine journals. There is an urgent need for improved strategies to diversify the reviewer pool and provide adequate training and support for reviewers.