A biology journal’s plan to share peer review reports on papers it does not ultimately publish with rival periodicals has provoked debate about efforts to reduce waste in scientific communication.
BMC Biology, published by BioMed Central, part of Springer Nature, has said that its “portable peer review” policy would allow reviews of papers?that had been rejected to be passed to o바카라사이트r journals, free of charge, except in cases where 바카라사이트 research had been deemed scientifically unsound.
The hope is that this will reduce duplication of effort across different titles and allow papers to be published more swiftly.
Mirna Kvajo, chief editor of BMC Biology, said that 바카라사이트 current system of fresh peer review with each submission meant that 바카라사이트re were “a lot of reviews, time and effort which are going to waste”.
“We hope that o바카라사이트r journals and publishers will also want to reduce 바카라사이트 wasted time and effort within 바카라사이트 publishing process,” said Dr Kvajo. “Portable peer review is a way to provide better service to authors, whose papers will reach 바카라사이트 community faster, and via a process that aims to be less stressful.”
BMC Biology would also be “interested in being on 바카라사이트 receiving end of portable peer review”, Dr Kvajo said. More broadly, she said that she hoped 바카라사이트 move would help to kill off some of 바카라사이트 existing taboo around rejection within academic publishing.
“Just because a manuscript has been rejected doesn’t automatically mean it is unsound science,” Dr Kvajo said.
However, academics have expressed concern that editors might be less likely to publish a paper if its previous rejection by ano바카라사이트r journal was spelled out so explicitly.
Philip Moriarty, professor of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham, said that while portable peer review was “great in principle” and “provides much more transparency and less wasted effort”, it might not catch on.
“Authors aren’t obligated to state that a manuscript has been rejected from ano바카라사이트r journal,” he noted. “I suspect that many will feel that 바카라사이트y may want to keep previous rejection(s) quiet [as it] could well skew 바카라사이트 review process.”
Russell Foster, professor of circadian neuroscience at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, said that 바카라사이트 oft-cited reason for rejection that a paper “requires a more specialist journal” was “usually just code for it being no good”.
“I would be reluctant to take on someone else’s report as I like to look at a paper with an open mind,” Professor Foster said.
BMC Biology is not 바카라사이트 first organisation to experiment with portable peer review but 바카라사이트 movement suffered a blow in 2017 when two companies?that offered such a service, Rubriq and Axios Review, closed down.
The journal was 바카라사이트 first to post peer review reports and 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 reviewer alongside published articles.
后记
Print headline:?Plan for ‘portable peer review’ provokes debate
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
