Sir, I was glad to read Professor Clark's Opinion paper on peer review (BDJ 2012; 213: 153–154). From my own (bitter) experience it is high time to expose an outdated opaque system which purports to pick the most worthy papers for publication, but actually could undermine and prevent papers from being published if the content threatens the standing of the reviewer.

It was my misfortune to select the topic of occlusion for my series of papers, a topic which is rife with differing and conflicting views. This may be one reason why journals like the BDJ carry so few papers related to this subject. While I can testify to the enthusiasm and encouragement of the Editor-in-Chief, who personally made helpful suggestions to the layout of the articles, I am not sure if he had the ability to choose reviewers who would have been the most impartial and knowledgeable.

Many months of work and alterations were of no avail, as the reviewer(s) placed obstacles at every stage. The final 'nail in the coffin' came after I had the temerity to contradict one or more of the reviewers' opinions, supplying ample facts and papers to support my statements. Having spent many years of study, mostly in the USA, and taught courses here in the UK, I reckon my understanding of the subject might be good enough to warrant reading.

I did not know the identity of the reviewers. At one stage I was described as an 'enthusiast' in my subject. I suppose this may have been a compliment, but now I wonder.

Had we both been aware of our names one can only think about another outcome.

Dentists, like anybody have their pride, and do not like being contradicted. In the area of peer review I now see that the current process leaves much to be desired. The series was never published in the BDJ.

1. By email