They list the problems and solutions as follows:
Problem #1: Reviewers are biased by personal motives;Solution: Eliminate anonymous peer review (
Biology Direct, BMJ, BMC); run open peer review alongside traditional review
Problem #2: Peer review is too slow, affecting public health, grants, and credit for ideas; Solution: Shorten publication time to a few days (PLoS Currents Influenza); bypass subsequent reviews (Journal of Biology); publish first drafts
Problem # 3: Too many papers to review; Solution: Recycle reviews from journals that have rejected the manuscript (Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium); wait for volunteers (Chemical Physics Letters); reward reviewer efforts.
The real problem is often the fact that reviewing a paper falls into three categories:
1. Just Plain Junk: Namely the paper is poorly written, is outright wrong, or is incomplete.
2. Duplication: The work may already have been done.
3. Falsification: Namely that the results are fraudulent.
Typically the second should be the easiest. You show what and where and note the result. However all too often the reviewer will say it has been done elsewhere but never state where. The Editor takes it as gospel and the author is left hanging. This is both unprofessional and unethical but I have seen it many times.
The first issue is sometimes difference in style. Although some reviewers want to see it written the way they dictate to their students, style should not be the selector. True errors should be noted and either corrected or rejected. Style on the other hand should no be a basis. Even if it makes the paper less readable.
The third issues is quite difficult. As we have seen again and again fraudulent results often take time to uncover and in the review process there is a presumption of integrity of the data.
The Scientist also discusses new biological journal trying to meet this challenge:
Although there are many specialist journals headed by scientists, the
top tier publications are often run by professional editors who do not
work in a lab, and who do not moderate the peer-review process. Many
researchers have complained that their manuscripts are rejected on the
opinion of one reviewer, even when the remaining two reviews are
glowing. To stem this problem Schekman plans to have referees discuss
their opinions in a private online forum and come to a consensus—a
process mediated by the senior editor—ideally within a month of the
paper’s submission.
It will be interesting to see if this makes progress.
The whole process of peer review will change as we see more and more on-line drafts. The old stodgy types will refrain from placing anything on line until peer reviewed bu frankly the sooner a result is available the sooner the usefulness can be maximized.
Posts
