A re-review of peer review: Leading journal looks to end the 'review nightmare'

January 27, 2009

Every scientific researcher has asked themselves the question at some stage in their professional career: Why has the paper I submitted to be peer reviewed disappeared into the ether?

Scientists, like most people, desire immediate results. In the case of peer review, researchers want to learn whether their paper has been accepted or rejected as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the review process rarely seems to work in this manner, even with the enhancements that the Internet has bought.

The primary source of frustration for authors is peer reviewers who insist on time-consuming and sometimes iterative re-review that makes little difference to the eventual validity or quality of the final research paper. For that reason, Journal of Biology is today embarking on an experimental policy of allowing authors to opt out of re-review in an effort to dramatically speed up the publication process.

Led by Miranda Robertson, the newly appointed Editor of Journal of Biology and a former Biology Editor at Nature, the new policy will see all research papers submitted to Journal of Biology first screened by a member of the Editorial Board for suitability of inclusion into the journal. If any of the reviewers then has suggestions or demands revisions, including the addition of data, authors will be asked to respond to the referees and revise the manuscript.

However, under the new experimental policy, the authors will then be able to decide whether or not they wish the referees to look at their manuscripts again.

Where authors opt out of re-review their responses and the editors will carefully scrutinize revised manuscripts and if it is clear that substantive issues have not been addressed then the manuscript may be rejected. Otherwise it will be published, with an accompanying minireview in which any flaws in the paper may be highlighted.

The decision to launch this experiment was taken after consultation with members of the Editorial Board, who were in general emphatically supportive of this new policy. 'Something surely needs to be done about the review nightmare that so many people face' said Editorial Board Member, Arthur Lander, University of California San Diego'…what is in the paper is fundamentally the responsibility of the authors, not of the reviewers' added Robert Horvitz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Nobel Laureate.

Speaking of the launch of the policy, Miranda Robertson said 'Of course journals must do their best to ensure that the research they publish is valid, but the primary function of a journal editor is to promote the dissemination of research results, not to obstruct it. I hope this experiment will show that referees, authors and journals can work together to accelerate the publication of important research.'

Reference: What are journals for? Journal of Biology 2009, 8:1doi:10.1186/jbiol111 jbiol.com/content/8/1/1

Source: BioMed Central

Explore further: Science's spam epidemic

Related Stories

Science's spam epidemic

December 2, 2016

"Hope this email finds you in superior spirits." So began a message that recently arrived in the inbox of Adriano Aguzzi, a neuropathologist at the University of Zurich. Although an apparently innocuous, even friendly, opening ...

How to break free from the stifling grip of luxury journals

December 23, 2013

Last week was the most memorable week of my scientific career. Accompanied by family, friends and colleagues, I was honoured with the award of a Nobel Prize in an unforgettable ceremony and banquet. That same week, I also ...

Vo-Dinh sees new journal advancing nano-bio field

September 20, 2005

Editor in Chief Tuan Vo-Dinh envisions the new international peer-reviewed journal NanoBiotechnology providing a forum that leads to "explosive growth" where nanotechnology and biomedical sciences converge.

Recommended for you

Hubble catches a transformation in the Virgo constellation

December 9, 2016

The constellation of Virgo (The Virgin) is especially rich in galaxies, due in part to the presence of a massive and gravitationally-bound collection of over 1300 galaxies called the Virgo Cluster. One particular member of ...

Hydrogen from sunlight—but as a dark reaction

December 9, 2016

The storage of photogenerated electric energy and its release on demand are still among the main obstacles in artificial photosynthesis. One of the most promising, recently identified photocatalytic new materials is inexpensive ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NeilFarbstein
not rated yet Jan 27, 2009
I have been though a review nightmare of my own. I tried to get scientists at the DOE's energy labs to review a report on a new type of laser fusion pellet I invented and after the first one refused, they passed messages to other DOE labs so that my report was blacklisted from major laser fusion facilities.
One lab agreed to review it and gave me a nondisclosure contract then they sent a letter that stated they were unilaterally cancelling the legal agreement they gave me and that they no longer "wanted" to review my report. They seemed to feel no obligation to review my application for use of their facilties. I found one prominent scientist who is an expert in laser particle beam weapons, fusion, and photonics. He reviewed it and he says my concept will work. I am a very prolific inventor and aside from my laser fusion report I have had almost no problem getting other concepts reviewed by qualified scientists.

Fellow scientists, inventors, and lawyers desirous of bringing a suit against the DOE and AFOSR are encouraged to contact me at protn7@att.net

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.