‘The scientific acquisition of knowledge is almost as tedious as a routine acquisition of wealth’

Eric Linklater (1899–1974)

Welsh-born Scottish writer and satirist

The publication of research findings in a peer-reviewed journal is considered to be the ultimate, indeed essential, step in the dissemination of new information for the benefit and advancement of the discipline. This holds true for all clinical disciplines, such as veterinary orthopaedics, as it does for other fields of scientific endeavour. Although the process of peer-review is slow and potentially flawed, a better alternative has yet to gain widespread acceptance. Yet for a multitude of reasons, many research studies falter and are never completed, i.e, appear as peer-reviewed papers. However, new research findings are commonly presented from the podium or in posters at scientific society meetings. This interim step has numerous important benefits for the researcher in the form of constructive criticism, fresh perspectives and ideas. Moreover, veterinarians attending these meetings may return home armed with new techniques and knowledge that can potentially benefit their patients.

A study published in this issue of the journal by Kettleman and colleagues,[1] from the University of Missouri, found that only 47% of abstracts presented at the Veterinary Orthopedic Society annual scientific meetings over a 14-year period (2001–2014) were ultimately published in a peer-reviewed journal. Most were published in Veterinary Surgery, Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology, and American Journal of Veterinary Research, but they took up to 2 years to be accepted for publication. They found that the median time from initial submission to acceptance for publication was 153 days (range: 18–974). So in summary, the delay in publication of the meeting abstracts as a peer-reviewed paper could be attributed to the authors' inaction, and the journal managing the peer-review process.

Delays due to the peer-review process are caused in part by papers being returned to authors for revisions requested by the reviewers to improve their clarity and presentation to an acceptable level. As a point of comparison, the median time from initial submission to acceptance for publication was 211 days (range: 40–393) for papers published in this journal in 12 months ending with Issue 3 of 2020. During the peer-review process, it would not be unusual for a paper to be returned to the authors two, three or four times until the reviewers are satisfied that it can be recommended for publication. Even though Linklater was a writer, he did not publish in this journal, but he apparently knew about this problem.

While the peer-review process can be protracted, it is within the power of authors to shorten this process by ensuring that their paper reports a well-designed study, addresses an important problem or research question and is presented in a well-written format according to journal requirements. This recommendation is substantiated in part by the findings of Kettleman and colleagues that papers with higher levels of evidence are accepted for publication much faster.

The fate of the other 53% of VOS abstracts that failed to be published is more difficult to determine. The reasons for rejection of submitted papers during this peer-review process are known only to the authors and the reviewers. The larger ‘data set’ needed to analyse the big picture is not freely available. Nevertheless, understanding the real reasons why papers are rejected during the peer-review process could be valuable in helping young investigators to produce better scientific papers.

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 September 2020 (online)

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

中文翻译：

---

经同行评审的会议摘要出版：不必要的缓慢过程？

“科学地获取知识几乎与常规获取财富一样乏味”

埃里克·林克莱特（1899–1974）

威尔士出生的苏格兰作家和讽刺作家

在同行评审的期刊上发表研究结果被认为是传播新信息，造福学科和促进学科发展的最终步骤，确实是必不可少的步骤。这对所有临床学科如兽医骨科都是如此，对其他科学领域也是如此。尽管同行评审的过程很慢并且可能存在缺陷，但更好的替代方法尚未获得广泛认可。然而由于种种原因，许多研究工作步履蹒跚，而且从未完成，即作为同行评审论文发表。但是，新的研究发现通常是在讲台上或在科学协会会议的海报中提出的。这一过渡性步骤以建设性的批评，新颖的观点和想法的形式，对研究人员具有许多重要的好处。此外，

密苏里大学的Kettleman及其同事[1]在本期杂志上发表的一项研究发现，在14年的时间里（2001-2014年），只有47％的摘要在兽医骨科协会年度科学会议上发表最终发表在同行评审的期刊上。大多数发表在《兽医外科》，《兽医与比较骨科和创伤学》和《美国兽医研究杂志》上，但他们花了2年的时间才被接受发表。他们发现，从初次提交到接受发表的中值时间为153天（范围：18–974）。因此，总而言之，会议摘要作为同行评审论文发表的延迟可以归因于作者的无所作为和由期刊管理同行评审的过程。

同行评审过程造成的延误部分是由于论文被退还给作者以供审稿人要求进行修订，以将其清晰度和表达方式提高到可接受的水平。作为比较，从2020年第3期到12个月，该期刊发表的论文从初次提交到被接受为止的中位时间为211天（范围：40-393）。在审稿人对可以推荐将其发表之前，将论文退回给作者两次，三次或四次的情况并不罕见。尽管林克莱特是作家，但他并未在该期刊上发表文章，但他显然知道这一问题。

尽管同行评审的过程可能会很漫长，但作者有能力通过确保论文报告设计良好，研究解决重要问题或研究问题并以书面形式正确地陈述来缩短此过程。满足日记要求。Kettleman及其同事的发现部分证明了这一建议，即具有较高证据水平的论文被接受以更快的速度发表。

其余53％未能发布的VOS摘要的命运更加难以确定。在同行评审过程中拒绝提交论文的原因只有作者和审稿人才知道。无法免费获得分析全局所需的较大“数据集”。但是，了解在同行评审过程中拒绝论文的真正原因可能对帮助年轻的研究人员撰写更好的科学论文很有帮助。

出版历史

出版日期：
2020年9月15日（在线）

©2020年。Thieme。版权所有。

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
斯图加特·纽约