Abstract
Introduction Peer review is paramount to the scholarly article paradigm, helping to ensure the integrity and credibility of research. The Lancet played a crucial role in disseminating key information on the COVID-19 pandemic, publishing early clinical descriptions, risk factors for death, and effectiveness of measures like physical distancing and masks. Notably, The Lancet was the world’s most cited journal for COVID-19 research, emphasising its significant impact on disseminating critical findings during the pandemic.
Methods Geographic data for The Lancet’s peer reviewers in 2019 (pre-pandemic) and 2020 (pandemic) were analysed at the country level, ranking reviewer countries. A test of proportions compared reviewer numbers between the years.
Results In 2020, China emerged as one of the top ten reviewer countries for the first time, with a significant increase from 1% (25 of 1843) in 2019 to 3% (54 of 1850), p=0.001. Italy also entered the top five reviewer countries, rising from 4% (67) to 5% (90), p=0.065. Reviewers from Africa 43 (2%) and South America 31 (2%) represented their continents in 2020. The top ten reviewer nations for The Lancet in 2020 largely mirrored the top ten countries in global COVID-19 research output.
Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic’s acute phase in 2020, The Lancet, the world’s most cited journal for COVID-19 research, featured peer reviewers who were largely representative of global COVID-19 research output. Notably, reviewers from China, the first country affected by COVID-19, increased significantly. However, underrepresentation of some continents persisted. To foster global idea exchange and enhance pandemic preparedness, research capacity worldwide must expand, broadening the reviewer pool—a vital step given uncertainties in future pandemic geographic origin.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was received for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30412-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00459-1
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
