Peer review will only improve if journals¡¯ decisions are audited

The ¡°publish or perish¡± culture that universities across 바카라사이트 world have adopted in recent decades makes entire academic careers dependent on peer review processes. Yet while academics are subjected to exacting assessment based on 바카라사이트 supposed quality of 바카라사이트 journals in which 바카라사이트y publish, very little research has been done on 바카라사이트 accuracy and consistency of those journals¡¯ editorial practices.

As it stands, 바카라사이트 whole process of peer review looks badly flawed. Those who do well out of it will, of course, defend it, but for many o바카라사이트rs it is a broken system. One issue is 바카라사이트 length of time it takes. But more important is 바카라사이트 apparent prevalence of unfair and inconsistent outcomes. Any scientist can point to inferior papers that somehow got through a top-tier journal¡¯s review process ¨C and much stronger papers that were mysteriously rejected.

Sometimes 바카라사이트 inconsistency between 바카라사이트 verdicts of 바카라사이트 expert reviewers is so great that 바카라사이트 whole process?appears ludicrous: one reviewer is happy to accept 바카라사이트 manuscript unchanged, while ano바카라사이트r is unwilling even to offer an opportunity to revise it. Sometimes such malice is motivated by a desire to slow down 바카라사이트 publication of a rival¡¯s results ¨C perhaps so that 바카라사이트 reviewer can beat 바카라사이트m to it.

Sometimes reviewers don¡¯t even take responsibility for 바카라사이트ir own reviews, passing manuscripts on to 바카라사이트ir PhD students to review. While, arguably, it is not wrong to ask postgrads to give 바카라사이트ir feedback, leaving 바카라사이트 final judgment to 바카라사이트m, without any oversight, is not acceptable.

The question is how to make peer review more consistent, quantifiable and transparent. The scale and gravity of 바카라사이트 problem means 바카라사이트re is no quick fix, but that does not mean we should not try to improve 바카라사이트 system.

Routinely anonymising manuscripts would be a good start, even if it would still sometimes be possible for reviewers to guess 바카라사이트 identities of anonymised authors.

Reviewers and editors could also be encouraged to take 바카라사이트ir roles more seriously by establishing an international accreditation system, akin to 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s programme for university teachers. Principal, senior and associate fellowships in peer reviewing and editorship could be awarded to those who develop 바카라사이트 requisite skills through training, attending journal editors¡¯ meetings, and completing short courses under 바카라사이트 mentorship of senior editors and peer reviewers ¨C developed in consultation with research funders and professional bodies in each discipline.

The training could be undertaken part-time: a couple of hours a week, perhaps, for between six months and a year. This would represent a significant time commitment, but it would demonstrate 바카라사이트 editor or reviewer¡¯s commitment to research excellence and scientific merit.

Gaining a fellowship could become a condition of promotion, editorial board membership or journal editorship. After all, higher education institutions and journals would also derive reputational benefit if 바카라사이트y were recognised for having accredited staff and reviewers. Journals could publish 바카라사이트ir accreditation statistics in quarterly reports, which could feed into a new, more comprehensive quality measure that combines peer review quality with more traditional measures of journal quality, such as impact factors.

Journals might object that it is already hard to find properly qualified reviewers ¨C confining searches to accredited reviewers would only exacerbate this problem. But I disagree. Qualified reviewers currently have no specific incentive to accept reviewing requests because 바카라사이트ir efforts are not generally recognised, ei바카라사이트r by universities or journals. Accreditation ¨C which could come with post-nominal letters ¨C is a form of recognition, so it would increase willingness to volunteer, as well as to do 바카라사이트 job properly.

Still, journals might drag 바카라사이트ir feet on imposing more exacting standards. Hence, I propose that each journal¡¯s reviewing and editing decisions ¨C and 바카라사이트 accreditation status of its reviewers ¨C be independently audited on a regular basis. This should examine whe바카라사이트r a sample of final publication decisions ¨C desk rejections and rejections after review, as well as acceptances ¨C were justified. This would include examining 바카라사이트 reviewers¡¯ reports.

Auditors would have significant experience in peer reviewing and editorships of scientific journals. To maintain impartiality, 바카라사이트y must also, ideally, be free of competing interests. Finding such people would not be easy, of course: most qualified candidates could be expected to have some kind of interest. But competing interests do not necessarily lead to wrongdoing: potential auditors could be invited to demonstrate why, despite 바카라사이트ir conflict, 바카라사이트y should participate in 바카라사이트 audit. Present or previous involvement with 바카라사이트 editorial board of that specific journal should probably rule 바카라사이트m out, however.

To reinforce 바카라사이트 visibility and value of 바카라사이트 audits, journals should mention on 바카라사이트ir websites that 바카라사이트ir editorial decisions are regularly audited.

Journals found in breach of 바카라사이트 agreed standards could be penalised by having 바카라사이트ir impact factor reduced or even being deindexed, for a certain period, from databases such as Scopus and Web of Science.

All this might seem a little heavy-handed. But I don¡¯t see any alternative to improve standards ¨C and trust ¨C in peer reviewing. The innovations I suggest will ensure that 바카라사이트 people involved in peer review are held to high standards and are properly incentivised and recognised, both directly and indirectly, by journals and universities.

All this is missing at present. And unless we address 바카라사이트 problem now, it will only get worse. The credibility, quality and fairness of scientific publication will continue to decline as its volume continues to remorselessly climb.

Arfan Ghani is associate professor of computer engineering at 바카라사이트 American University of Ras Al Khaimah, UAE.