The maintenance of quality and integrity in clinical and basic science research depends upon peer review. This process has stood the test of time and has evolved to meet increasing work loads, and ways of detecting fraud in the scientific community. However, in the 21st century, the emphasis on evidence-based medicine and good science has placed pressure on the ways in which the peer review system is used by most journals.

This paper reviews the peer review system and the problems it faces in the digital age, and proposes possible solutions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:436–41.

There is no unified national training system for orthopaedic surgeons in China. With such rapid progress in many aspects of life in China, there is an imminent need for improvement in the training of orthopaedic specialists. Since 2003 the orthopaedic community in Hong Kong has been working in collaboration with their colleagues in mainland China to develop a training system for orthopaedic surgery. We adopted the system from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd), setting up a trial centre in the Beijing Jishuitan hospital in 2006, with trainers and trainees attaining the standards set by RCSEd and the Hong Kong College of Orthopaedic Surgeons (HKCOS). This trial is ongoing, with the success of two trainees who passed the exit examination in 2010 and became the first Chinese orthopaedic surgeons with a joint fellowship of both the RCSEd and the HKCOS. Following this inaugural success, we are confident that China will develop a training system for orthopaedic surgeons to a consistently high international standard.

The credibility and creativity of an author may be gauged by the number of scientific papers he or she has published, as well as the frequency of citations of a particular paper reflecting the impact of the data on the area of practice. The object of this study was to identify and analyse the qualities of the top 100 cited papers in orthopaedic surgery. The database of the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information (1945 to 2008) was used. A total of 1490 papers were cited more than 100 times, with the top 100 being subjected to further analysis. The majority originated in the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. The top 100 papers were published in seven specific orthopaedic journals.

Analysis of the most-cited orthopaedic papers allows us a unique insight into the qualitites, characteristics and clinical innovations required for a paper to attain ‘classic’ status.