To the Editor We read with great interest the editorial by Kibbe and Freischlag1 on the call for diversity and inclusion in a journal’s editorial and peer review process. The authors’ critical appraisal of the retracted article by Hardouin et al2 was precise and indeed served as an example of how to review a manuscript. The subsequent analysis of the editorial process did not drop the ball either. We concur with the authors that an editorial team must facilitate a heterogeneous peer review process to limit any biases. Implicit bias is one of the pitfalls of any editorial process, whether subject matter or gender. This particular case highlighted both the inadequate appraisal of a paper and gender bias.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Wamalwa AO, Cheruiyot I, Kigera J. Diversity Is Needed Throughout All Aspects of the Editorial Peer Review Process for Surgery Journals. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(6):587–588. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0015
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.