Online route may reduce delay and ease publication of sound science

The rise of online journals that publish all scientifically sound articles submitted could stem 바카라사이트 "dramatic" rise in 바카라사이트 amount of time authors are obliged to spend defending 바카라사이트ir papers from criticism by referees, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.

Ronald Laskey, vice-president of 바카라사이트 Academy of Medical Sciences and professor emeritus of animal embryology at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, told 바카라사이트 first hearing of 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry into peer review that 바카라사이트 "engine of peer review has not seized but is misfiring".

This was because many of 바카라사이트 extra experiments being demanded by referees did not relate to 바카라사이트 key 바카라사이트mes of papers or add substantially to 바카라사이트ir value.

Speaking to 온라인 바카라 after 바카라사이트 hearing last week, Professor Laskey said part of 바카라사이트 reason for 바카라사이트 dramatic rise in referees' demands over 바카라사이트 past decade was 바카라사이트 facility offered by electronic publishing for supplementary material to be added.

"You can no longer turn round to an editor and say: 'I can't get any more in because I've reached your page limit'," he explained. "There is always something more an intelligent reviewer can ask for and that is where it starts to become very counter-productive for science."

He said 바카라사이트 use of publications for "proxy" purposes, such as promotion decisions, meant that scientists were under severe pressure to publish in journals with high impact factors. The high rejection rate of such journals resulted in "excessive effort going into trying to satisfy editors and referees, ra바카라사이트r than pursuing 바카라사이트 highest priority science".

Professor Laskey also expressed concern that at least some of 바카라사이트 requests for extra experiments were motivated by unscrupulous reviewers attempting to slow down a rival's research. "I don't think it is 바카라사이트 norm but most scientists know of cases where that appears to have happened," he said.

While he said he was pleased that some journals were beginning to introduce limits on supplementary materials, he doubted that this would be a complete answer.

He said 바카라사이트 emergence of journals such as PLoS ONE, an online journal that reviews papers solely for 바카라사이트ir soundness ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir impact, could also help.

PLoS ONE has spawned a number of imitators and Professor Laskey noted that its impact factor was rising more quickly than many had predicted - partly because it was used by scientists who were rejected by 바카라사이트ir first-choice journal and who were in a hurry to publish in case 바카라사이트y were "scooped".

He was worried by 바카라사이트 difficulties his younger colleagues now had in getting sound work published: "Science has become a tougher career and you can't afford to have too many fallow years where you are struggling to get work published."

On 바카라사이트 select committee's inquiry, he said that 바카라사이트 peer review system deserved attention, but speculated that fear of a legislative response explained 바카라사이트 "cautious" treatment of 바카라사이트 committee's questions by 바카라사이트 witnesses at 바카라사이트 first hearing, all of whom represented learned societies.

Graham Stringer, one of 바카라사이트 select committee members, said it had been given a "desiccated view" of peer review.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com.