International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2014, 9, 597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2014-0143 © 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com EDITORIAL
The Unsung Heroes in Science Recent elite sporting events like the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi and the FIFA Football World Cup in Brazil are prime examples of giving top-class athletes a special forum to present themselves, compete at the highest level, and achieve glory. The athletes, particularly the very successful athletes, are at the center of attention. However, few would be able to reach their goals independently without the help of many others like trainers, coaches, technical support staff, physiotherapists and other health professionals, and even sports scientists. While a well-functioning multiprofessional team is key to being successful, it is certainly not a guarantor of success. In addition to good preparation for an event and, of course, a bit of luck, success also requires a proper environment and an established infrastructure. Without good venues and high-quality referees it would be more or less impossible for athletes to realize their goals and exploit their individual potential while playing by the rules. Therefore, the importance of referees and other supporting roles that make an event happen should not be underestimated. This situation is comparable in science. As scientists, we want to present our work and ourselves and “compete” at a high level. While not competing to win a trophy or a medal (well, the Nobel would be a nice medal), the success of scientists is measured in grant income, number and quality of publications, and citations of their work as indicated by the H-index. It is probably correct to say that publications are the most important component in this “game” of science. In analogy with the example of successful athletes, in science a well-functioning team, careful preparation, and a bit of luck are important. High-quality journals like the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance provide a platform or venue that sport scientists can use to present their work. The forum is highly competitive, as indicated by a relatively low acceptance rate. As in sports, this competitiveness should help further increase the quality of the published papers. Publishers, managing editors, editors, and associate editors work hard to provide a good environment and infrastructure to facilitate the process. But the reviewers, like the referees in the world of sports, have a critical role. Reviewers are the advisors to the editorial team. Recruited from the peer group and equipped with the required knowledge
to give expert opinions, their views constitute the centerpiece or backbone of the decision process. So great responsibility rests on the reviewers’ shoulders and, of course, on the editorial team member who selects the reviewers. As scientists and authors ourselves, we all know the disappointment if a manuscript is denied publication. At times, we feel unfairly treated by a reviewer or editor. Just like with the referees on the pitch, only unpopular judgments seem to receive major attention—but just as spectators in the stadium, we probably have a biased view on some decisions. However, even in this situation authors should not forget that without the time and effort put in by reviewers, it would not be possible to publish in good scientific journals at all. With their suggestions and comments the reviewers help improve the quality of a manuscript and consequently also of the journal. Without their contributions, the house of cards would collapse, just as an athletic contest can disintegrate into chaos if the referees do not do their job properly. This deserves the appreciation of the scientific community, and authors should be very grateful. Just as referees are critical to the game, reviewers are the unsung heroes in science. As an associate editor, I feel the obligation to IJSPP and to the submitting authors to try my hardest to select reviewers who are real experts in the area of a submitted manuscript and willing to provide relevant reviews in a timely manner. My experience from the first year on the job is that it can be quite a laborious task to find peers with both the required expertise and the willingness to help. I have found that I often need to contact 8 or more colleagues before someone agrees to review a manuscript. I was surprised to learn that some peers who submit manuscripts on a regular basis tend to decline invitations to review, on an equally regular basis. Call me naïve, but I always thought that just as there must be “sportsmanship” in sports, there must be also the professional ethic to do the work that makes the journal process work. Just as it should be every scientist’s obligation to do research and publish the results (“science not shared is science not done”), it should also be their obligation to do the less glamorous work of playing referee from time to time. Renate M. Leithäuser Associate Editor, IJSPP
597
www.IJSPP-Journal.com EDITORIAL
The Unsung Heroes in Science Recent elite sporting events like the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi and the FIFA Football World Cup in Brazil are prime examples of giving top-class athletes a special forum to present themselves, compete at the highest level, and achieve glory. The athletes, particularly the very successful athletes, are at the center of attention. However, few would be able to reach their goals independently without the help of many others like trainers, coaches, technical support staff, physiotherapists and other health professionals, and even sports scientists. While a well-functioning multiprofessional team is key to being successful, it is certainly not a guarantor of success. In addition to good preparation for an event and, of course, a bit of luck, success also requires a proper environment and an established infrastructure. Without good venues and high-quality referees it would be more or less impossible for athletes to realize their goals and exploit their individual potential while playing by the rules. Therefore, the importance of referees and other supporting roles that make an event happen should not be underestimated. This situation is comparable in science. As scientists, we want to present our work and ourselves and “compete” at a high level. While not competing to win a trophy or a medal (well, the Nobel would be a nice medal), the success of scientists is measured in grant income, number and quality of publications, and citations of their work as indicated by the H-index. It is probably correct to say that publications are the most important component in this “game” of science. In analogy with the example of successful athletes, in science a well-functioning team, careful preparation, and a bit of luck are important. High-quality journals like the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance provide a platform or venue that sport scientists can use to present their work. The forum is highly competitive, as indicated by a relatively low acceptance rate. As in sports, this competitiveness should help further increase the quality of the published papers. Publishers, managing editors, editors, and associate editors work hard to provide a good environment and infrastructure to facilitate the process. But the reviewers, like the referees in the world of sports, have a critical role. Reviewers are the advisors to the editorial team. Recruited from the peer group and equipped with the required knowledge
to give expert opinions, their views constitute the centerpiece or backbone of the decision process. So great responsibility rests on the reviewers’ shoulders and, of course, on the editorial team member who selects the reviewers. As scientists and authors ourselves, we all know the disappointment if a manuscript is denied publication. At times, we feel unfairly treated by a reviewer or editor. Just like with the referees on the pitch, only unpopular judgments seem to receive major attention—but just as spectators in the stadium, we probably have a biased view on some decisions. However, even in this situation authors should not forget that without the time and effort put in by reviewers, it would not be possible to publish in good scientific journals at all. With their suggestions and comments the reviewers help improve the quality of a manuscript and consequently also of the journal. Without their contributions, the house of cards would collapse, just as an athletic contest can disintegrate into chaos if the referees do not do their job properly. This deserves the appreciation of the scientific community, and authors should be very grateful. Just as referees are critical to the game, reviewers are the unsung heroes in science. As an associate editor, I feel the obligation to IJSPP and to the submitting authors to try my hardest to select reviewers who are real experts in the area of a submitted manuscript and willing to provide relevant reviews in a timely manner. My experience from the first year on the job is that it can be quite a laborious task to find peers with both the required expertise and the willingness to help. I have found that I often need to contact 8 or more colleagues before someone agrees to review a manuscript. I was surprised to learn that some peers who submit manuscripts on a regular basis tend to decline invitations to review, on an equally regular basis. Call me naïve, but I always thought that just as there must be “sportsmanship” in sports, there must be also the professional ethic to do the work that makes the journal process work. Just as it should be every scientist’s obligation to do research and publish the results (“science not shared is science not done”), it should also be their obligation to do the less glamorous work of playing referee from time to time. Renate M. Leithäuser Associate Editor, IJSPP
597
