Where should the peer-review process of the APOS Trends in Orthodontics go?

Did you feel frustrated when your manuscript was rejected after peer review? Yes, I did! My personal experience was I used to submit a clinical study with complete data that, even now, “I still believe it is a new thought outside the box,” but I got rejection. One of the peer reviewer’s comments was “This is too good to be true.”

Peer-review has no doubt is one of the best processes for a journal to objectively and scientifically evaluate the evidences of an original article, new thought, innovation, or case report. However, the current peer-review process could be an issue and might have some impeding points in accepting a manuscript with new thoughts outside the box, and thus might impact the progress of our profession.

For a peer-review process, reviewers who are the experts or those who are familiar with the subject of a submitted manuscript usually would be invited to review and evaluate the manuscript. Although this might only happen once in a while, some of the invited reviewers might accept or suggest revision due to a submitted manuscript is in favor of their previous publications or professional preferences. On the other hand, some of the invited reviewers might reject a submitted manuscript since it is not in favor of their previous publications or professional preferences. I am a peer reviewer for several orthodontic journals, and I believe I have been doing the same without awareness of this! I could not complain when my “new thought outside the box manuscript” was rejected!

Similarly, an Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or associate/sectional editor of a journal might follow the current track of scientific concepts and evidences that have been known worldwide as the requirements in decision of rejection, revision, or acceptance of a submitted manuscript, although this might not be always. This is reasonable since the progress of science should be accumulated step by step on the current scientific evidences. I am lucky and honored to be the current EIC of the APOS Trends in Orthodontics, since I am following the principles mentioned above in decision of acceptance, revision, or rejection of a submitted manuscript after the peer-review process! Again, I could not complain when my “new thought outside the box manuscript” was rejected, since it might be against the current track of scientific concepts and evidence!

One of the purposes of the Journal of APOS Trends in Orthodontics is to encourage and include new thoughts in orthodontics that might flip over the current concepts in orthodontics.

Where should the peer-review process of APOS Trends in Orthodontics go? The answer is among the texts.