The report by Brown and Baca1 in this issue of AJDC was commissioned by the Editor for several reasons: (1) We wished to assess the rigor of our review, revision, and editorial acceptance process by looking at the published results. (2) We wished to identify, if possible, "errors" in methodological presentation and statistical analyses to put in place a review process in the future that will minimize or eliminate such errors. (3) And, finally, we were curious.
The results reported by Brown and Baca1 are informative and moderately disturbing but essential for the editorial staff as it addresses methods of review. A word about our current review process is in order. Each manuscript that is published has had a minimum of two reviews by experts in the field(s) covered by the report; many manuscripts will have had a third or even a fourth review,