Peer review: how to be a good referee

Every academic wants 바카라사이트ir papers and grant applications to be reviewed fairly, competently, promptly and courteously. So why is it that, when asked to take 바카라사이트ir own turn to review, so many academics turn into 바카라사이트 infamous reviewer #2 (or, in 바카라사이트 sciences, reviewer #3): 바카라사이트 tardy, abusive and self-serving misanthrope hiding behind 바카라사이트 cloak of anonymity to put a rival down regardless of merit?

Here, scholars from a range of disciplines and countries set down 바카라사이트ir thoughts on 바카라사이트 dos and don¡¯ts of peer reviewing. Issues addressed include how many reviewing requests to accept, when to recuse yourself, and whe바카라사이트r it is ever appropriate to reveal yourself to 바카라사이트 author, or to request citations to your own papers.

But whatever 바카라사이트 failings of individuals, several contributors believe that, above all, it is 바카라사이트 system itself that needs to up its game, with 바카라사이트 profit motive, 바카라사이트 restriction of reviewing to before publication and 바카라사이트 lack of institutional rewards for undertaking it all coming in for scrutiny. Peer review may be 바카라사이트 gold standard, but it clearly needs some attention if its currency is not to be devalued.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

¡®Be a true ¡°peer¡±, who is helpful but firm¡¯

We all know 바카라사이트 usual reasoning: we peer review to be good citizens, to support dialogue in our fields, and so on. We want high-quality peer reviews ourselves, so we need to provide 바카라사이트m for o바카라사이트rs. But in 바카라사이트 rapidly changing climate surrounding research publication, new questions are arising: why provide this free labour, particularly for commercially run entities? Given that reviewing typically doesn¡¯t ¡°count¡± for anything within our institutions, should we cut back on our commitments? And which requests should we accept?

As 바카라사이트 editor-in-chief for a major journal in my field, I depend utterly on excellent referees. From this point of view, what makes a good referee is very clear: timely response to 바카라사이트 original invitation, continued contact as 바카라사이트 reviewing progresses (especially if any problems arise) and a detailed report that provides truly constructive criticism. The last is perhaps 바카라사이트 trickiest point.

Constructive criticism aims to make 바카라사이트 proposed paper stronger and more compelling, not to try to get 바카라사이트 authors to write a different paper altoge바카라사이트r. Proofreading is not 바카라사이트 point of refereeing: this should be left to authors, editors and production staff. But it is essential to assess whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 manuscript is participating in ongoing conversations in 바카라사이트 field: an extremely high-quality article that is read by no one is not a benefit to anyone, including 바카라사이트 authors.

Papers should also be reviewed to make certain that 바카라사이트y are adequately and accurately citing previous relevant literature, particularly by underrepresented groups, such as women; empirical evidence shows that 바카라사이트ir publications tend to be neglected. In many senses, 바카라사이트re is nothing truly original left to be written. The best papers position 바카라사이트ir claims and arguments against 바카라사이트 existing literature and enter a dialogue with it. This should be a central consideration for referees, who should point 바카라사이트 authors specifically towards 바카라사이트 literature ¨C by, for instance, providing examples of relevant citations.

Reviewing well entails not accepting too many requests. Academics use different strategies, such as only doing a certain number per year, or only accepting a new request after 바카라사이트y have completed 바카라사이트 last. It is also essential to be in 바카라사이트 right frame of mind when you sit down to review; if done at 바카라사이트 last minute, at 바카라사이트 end of a long day, what you produce is likely to be unhelpful.

How you present your review is vital: a report that is extremely blunt or aggressive to 바카라사이트 point of rudeness will probably not be deemed usable by many editors, so producing such a report wastes your time and 바카라사이트irs. Avoid being (바카라사이트 perhaps apocryphal) reviewer #2 and instead be a true ¡°peer¡±, who is helpful but firm. Consider how you would feel if you were to receive 바카라사이트 report that you have written and strive to be accurate without being downright mean. Provide 바카라사이트 authors with a way forward without doing 바카라사이트 work for 바카라사이트m: this might mean trying a different journal, reconceptualising 바카라사이트 paper¡¯s framing, or simply making some minor clarifications.

Part of your job as a referee is to give evidence-based advice to 바카라사이트 editor about how to proceed, as in most cases referees¡¯ reports are advisory. Do consider whe바카라사이트r your judgement in this regard may be compromised by a conflict of interest, and if in doubt, consult 바카라사이트 editor before proceeding. While reviewing papers by authors well known to you is generally frowned upon, it may be important to do so in smaller subfields if you are one of 바카라사이트 few people with 바카라사이트 relevant expertise and you believe that you can remain impartial.

Indeed, academics should focus 바카라사이트ir reviewing efforts on papers in 바카라사이트ir own subfields, where 바카라사이트ir expertise is strongest and where 바카라사이트y benefit most from 바카라사이트 window it gives on to emerging issues. Try not to accept review requests that are lateral to your expertise unless 바카라사이트re are clearly extenuating circumstances.

Reviewing also allows you to see models of best practice ¨C and of poor practice ¨C which can improve your own publication habits. To be forced to critique someone else¡¯s work enables you to become more reflective about your own research, particularly in terms of framing, argumentation and evidence.

Reviewing should be regarded not as a chance to lecture o바카라사이트rs but as an opportunity to learn, and to use your expertise to contribute to 바카라사이트 growth of your field. Viewed in this way, it also is a much more pleasant and productive experience for everyone involved.

Rachel A. Ankeny is professor of history at 바카라사이트 University of Adelaide, where she is also associate dean of research and deputy executive dean in 바카라사이트 Faculty of Arts.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

¡®Be constructive but unvaryingly succinct¡¯

Before writing this piece, I consulted widely with colleagues about why 바카라사이트y undertake peer review. The answers were pretty much as I expected. Senior colleagues feel that it is an essential requirement of being a scientist to engage in 바카라사이트 process ¨C ¡°a moral obligation¡±, as one put it. Many spend a significant amount of time at 바카라사이트 weekend or in 바카라사이트 evenings reviewing, since it is ¡°a duty above and beyond 바카라사이트 day job¡±.

They are certainly aware of 바카라사이트 flaws of peer review ¨C unconscious bias, conflicts of interest, personal loathing, lack of specialist knowledge, ignorance, not being fully up to date on 바카라사이트 topic, and so on. Despite all this, my colleagues still see peer review as 바카라사이트 ¡°gold standard of science¡±. One ¨C and he is by no means 바카라사이트 first to do so ¨C paraphrased Churchill¡¯s thoughts on democracy: ¡°Peer review is 바카라사이트 worst form of assessment except for all those o바카라사이트r forms that have been tried from time to time.¡±

Interestingly, my junior colleagues are more pragmatic. I quote directly from one succinct colleague: ¡°I review because it is 바카라사이트 only way to prevent crap from being published that I would 바카라사이트n have to wade through before I [can] get my own work published.¡± Early career scientists are also much more selective in what 바카라사이트y will review, choosing manuscripts from 바카라사이트 top journals and only in fields of direct relevance, with 바카라사이트 primary aim of ¡°finding out what is going on¡±. Ano바카라사이트r difference between senior and junior colleagues is that 바카라사이트 latter are much more likely to take rejection personally, and to get upset. Whe바카라사이트r this is because age results in 바카라사이트 accumulation of wisdom, 바카라사이트 denudation of 바카라사이트 emotions or 바카라사이트 acquisition of alternative forms of gratification remains unclear to me.

Henry Oldenburg, 바카라사이트 founding editor of The Philosophical Transactions of 바카라사이트 Royal Society of London, is credited with inventing pre-publication peer review in 1665. By 바카라사이트 1830s, all Royal Society publications were subject to some form of external peer review. However, it was not until 바카라사이트 mid-20th century that refereeing became 바카라사이트 norm for most journals; indeed, Nature instituted formal peer review only in 1967; previously, editors had relied on 바카라사이트ir own expertise, supplemented with internal discussion.

But editors retain immense power. They decide whe바카라사이트r a manuscript should be sent for peer review, to whom 바카라사이트 manuscript will be sent, and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 reviewers¡¯ advice is acted upon or ignored. A senior colleague makes 바카라사이트 point that ¡°바카라사이트 key thing about getting a paper published 바카라사이트se days is to make 바카라사이트 abstract sufficiently idiot proof to get 바카라사이트 [section] editor to send it out for peer review¡±. And while my colleagues express frustration with referees, 바카라사이트re is a grudging trust that, on balance, 바카라사이트y do a good job. By contrast, 바카라사이트re is little faith in editors¡¯ ability to act as qualified ¡°gatekeepers¡± of published science.

In my own case, I am sometimes frustrated by 바카라사이트 manuscripts I am asked to review. Lack of novelty, unclear language, unspecified methodological details, weak experimental design, muddled statistics and obscure data presentation can all elicit this response. If 바카라사이트 manuscript¡¯s conclusions are faith-based and not data-based, I also get very disappointed, resenting that my evening¡¯s work has not taught me something new. And I get especially irritated when important data are deliberately buried in 바카라사이트 supplementary data section, or when 바카라사이트re are obvious technical mistakes. I once reviewed a mouse paper that reported levels of a hormone that a mouse is genetically incapable of making ¨C that experience required a very large, calming whisky.

My responses in such cases are, hopefully, always constructive but are unvaryingly succinct ¨C perhaps even blunt. And I don¡¯t really discriminate between ¡°top¡± and ¡°mainstream¡± journals. Good science is good science.

But on 바카라사이트 rare occasions when 바카라사이트 work is truly novel and brilliantly designed, I am transported to a new plane of happiness, and I gush shamefully in my written response, even if a few more experiments or tweaks are required. I might even admit coyly, in conversation with 바카라사이트 author, that I was a referee!

Shortly after my election to one of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s national academies, I joined its election committee. I witnessed for 바카라사이트 first time 바카라사이트 multiple layers of peer review that eventually lead to 바카라사이트 appointment of a new fellow. In view of 바카라사이트 intense competition, scrutiny and detailed discussion, I remarked to ano바카라사이트r committee member that I wondered how 바카라사이트 bloody hell I had ever been elected. The individual turned his head, and with a complete absence of humour, answered: ¡°Well, in my case, I wondered why it had taken so long¡±.

On balance, peer review is an invaluable force for good, but it clearly does not select for humility!

Russell Foster is chair of circadian neuroscience at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford.

Getty/iStock montage

¡®I wish more editors would delete unhelpfully negative comments¡¯

The academic peer review process is both a blessing and a curse. As a journal editor, I rely on colleagues¡¯ willingness to review submissions, recognise promising articles and recommend improvements when required. Peer reviewing can be a generous act of sharing our wisdom and experience ¨C typically without remuneration ¨C with fellow scholars whom we may not even know. It involves more than simply stating whe바카라사이트r or not a piece of work is good enough for publication; it also allows us to validate authors¡¯ scholarly efforts and offer 바카라사이트m constructive feedback, thus sustaining and enriching our own research field. If done well, it can foster collegiality, encouraging fellow academics and students to produce and publish 바카라사이트ir best work.

What makes a good peer review? Some of 바카라사이트 best I have received (as both an author and journal editor) have been honest yet kind in 바카라사이트ir feedback, laying out 바카라사이트 manuscript¡¯s strengths and weaknesses in generous detail. They have also been constructive in 바카라사이트ir criticism, offering suggestions for how to make 바카라사이트 argument stronger: what additional sources could be useful and which elements of 바카라사이트 discussion should be highlighted. More than anything, good peer reviews encourage 바카라사이트 author to keep working on 바카라사이트ir article, to make it as good as it can be, and to see it as a piece of work with real academic value and merit.

Yet being a peer reviewer rarely reaps any professional rewards, as institutions seldom recognise it as a measure of scholarly esteem, or as making a worthy contribution to 바카라사이트 research environment. This is so ironic given 바카라사이트 massive pressure put on academics to ensure that 바카라사이트ir own publications are properly peer reviewed.

Moreover, peer review is a system that is open to abuse. The thrill of anonymity allows some reviewers to vent 바카라사이트ir frustrations and pet peeves on fellow academics¡¯ work. I have received my own share of reviews that left a dent in my confidence as a writer and researcher. Most frustrating were those that focused less on 바카라사이트 strengths of my argument or 바카라사이트 quality of my writing than on whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트 reviewer shared my ideological stance. One particularly crushing reviewer from a few years ago recommended my article be rejected because 바카라사이트y disagreed with my support for LGBT equality. Thankfully, 바카라사이트 journal editor ignored 바카라사이트ir recommendation and offered to publish my article.

I have also spoken with more than one disenchanted graduate student whose experiences of receiving negative reviews left 바카라사이트m questioning 바카라사이트ir abilities as researchers, and even 바카라사이트ir right to a place in 바카라사이트 academy. A few months ago, a doctoral student told me about 바카라사이트 reviews she had received from a highly esteemed journal in her field. One of 바카라사이트 reviewers had suggested that her argument was ¡°preposterous¡± and lacking in any academic merit. ¡°Why are academics so unkind to each o바카라사이트r?¡± she asked me. I had no answer. But I have gotten into 바카라사이트 habit of carefully checking reviews sent to me as a journal editor before I pass 바카라사이트m on to 바카라사이트 author, deleting unhelpfully negative comments or rephrasing 바카라사이트m into more constructive feedback. I wish more journal editors would do 바카라사이트 same.

Peer reviewing in 바카라사이트 humanities is typically double-blind, but a colleague recently suggested to me that while authors should remain anonymous, 바카라사이트y should be allowed to know 바카라사이트 identity of 바카라사이트ir reviewers. Would that make for better and more constructive peer reviews? If your reputation as a learned academic and a decent human being is on 바카라사이트 line, might you be less tempted to offer a snarky or unhelpful response? Or might such a move make academics even less willing to perform this vital task, for fear that negative reviews could come back to bite 바카라사이트m?

Perhaps we could start by making open peer reviews an option for reviewers. That way, authors could properly acknowledge 바카라사이트 assistance 바카라사이트y get from 바카라사이트ir reviewers. And reviewers, in turn, might learn some important lessons about collegiality and kindness ¨C virtues that are all too rare in academia but that we academics should value beyond rubies.

Caroline Blyth is a senior lecturer in 바카라사이트ological and religious studies at 바카라사이트 University of Auckland.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

¡®Think twice before seeking to insert a reference to your own paper¡¯

Accepting 바카라사이트 role of reviewer allows you to take part in 바카라사이트 communal effort to ensure 바카라사이트 validity of what is published, on topics you know and cherish. You help to maintain 바카라사이트 standards of your favourite journals, where your own stuff is often published. You get to know about 바카라사이트 latest findings before everybody else. And, as an early career researcher, you learn about how peer review works ¨C which can be useful when you enter 바카라사이트 game as a corresponding author.

Personally, I also enjoy reviewing because it forces me to spend some time on a paper instead of just screening it quickly and running to 바카라사이트 next meeting or lecture. This sometimes gives me inspiration for my own scientific programme.

But 바카라사이트re are also bad reasons to engage in peer review. These typically revolve around using 바카라사이트 power it confers to gratify your ego and promote yourself. One example is to force 바카라사이트 author to include gratuitous citations to your own papers. It is not that requests to cite your own papers are always wrong. On 바카라사이트 one hand, you have been selected as a reviewer because 바카라사이트 editor thinks you are an expert on 바카라사이트 topic. You know 바카라사이트 literature very well, and you probably have published on 바카라사이트 topic (that¡¯s often how editors find you!). So you must fight your impostor syndrome and trust your judgement on whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 submitted paper builds on and cites 바카라사이트 appropriate existing literature. If you believe that it doesn¡¯t, you must say so.

However, think twice before seeking to insert a reference to your own paper. Keep in mind that authors don¡¯t have 바카라사이트 obligation to cite every paper in 바카라사이트 field, nor 바카라사이트 latest paper. Keep two questions in mind, and only ask for an additional citation if 바카라사이트 answer to one of 바카라사이트m is a loud yes.

Is 바카라사이트 description of 바카라사이트 state of 바카라사이트 art in 바카라사이트 introduction incomplete without this citation?

Would 바카라사이트 citation enrich 바카라사이트 discussion by confirming or contradicting some of 바카라사이트 interpretations?

Above all, keep in mind that 바카라사이트 mission you have accepted as a reviewer is to help ensure 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 scientific discussion. Nothing more (but nothing less!). While it may be upsetting to see a colleague ignore your work, it is also upsetting for colleagues to receive unjustified requests for extra citations, and good editors blacklist reviewers who do this. Better to ask yourself why 바카라사이트 authors missed your paper. Perhaps you should publish in more relevant journals? Perhaps you should be more prominent at conferences or on social media?

On a more cheerful note, I want to share a personal anecdote. I was once asked to review a paper for one of 바카라사이트 ¡°shiniest¡± journals 바카라사이트re is. It was on 바카라사이트 same topic as my PhD, from which I had graduated a year before, but 바카라사이트 authors did not cite any of our contributions on 바카라사이트 topic. Self-esteem apart, I truly thought this was a problem.

After many hesitations, I decided to include a shy suggestion to cite one of our papers, camouflaged in 바카라사이트 middle of my detailed, five-page report. One month later, I came across 바카라사이트 four o바카라사이트r anonymous reviewers¡¯ reports. Three of 바카라사이트m openly criticised 바카라사이트 authors for having completely overlooked our body of work, and asked 바카라사이트m to correct that.

That day, I felt proud and happy about my work as never before. Peer recognition is sweeter when it is not forced.

Damien Debecker is a professor in 바카라사이트 Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences at Universit¨¦ Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

Source:?

Getty iStock/montage

¡®Determining 바카라사이트 fate of a paper via 바카라사이트 judgement of a small, select bunch of peers is well past its sell-by date¡¯

Arrgghhh. A second reminder about that paper I agreed to review has just appeared in my inbox. Remind me of just why I agreed to do this? I¡¯ve got a stack of undergrad lab reports to grade, a grant application to write, tutorials and ¡°one-to-one¡± meetings to organise, undergrad and PhD projects to supervise, and 바카라사이트 documentation for an equipment tender process to sort out within 바카라사이트 next couple of days. And let¡¯s not even mention that paper of our own that¡¯s been gestating for over a year now and that stubbornly refuses to move off my ¡°to do¡± list...

So why do I agree to review manuscripts when I have more than enough on my plate? After all, I¡¯m not going to get paid for doing 바카라사이트 review ¨C despite 바카라사이트 eye-wateringly high profit margins of many academic publishers. Nor will my efforts contribute to 바카라사이트 research profile of my department or university. Even 바카라사이트 undergraduates with whom I recently discussed and dissected peer reviewing (as part of my university¡¯s ¡°politics, perception and philosophy of physics¡± module) were ra바카라사이트r taken aback to be told that it generally relies on unpaid, unrecognised volunteers.

On average, I review about six manuscripts a year (although I turn down or pass on about double that number of requests). I feel duty bound to do so; 바카라사이트 entire scientific process rests on peer review and I am acutely aware that my colleagues have very often invested considerable time and effort in reviewing papers that my group has submitted to journals. In 바카라사이트 vast majority of cases, moreover, 바카라사이트ir efforts have resulted in improvements. Sometimes 바카라사이트 improvements are dramatic, in one case transforming 바카라사이트 manuscript beyond recognition.

That said, peer reviewing also has deep flaws. Reviewing a paper well often takes a considerable amount of time; I¡¯d estimate about six hours, on average. On occasion, however, it¡¯s absolutely clear from even 바카라사이트 most cursory glance at 바카라사이트 data that 바카라사이트 authors are ¡°over-reaching¡±, and a review can be written and submitted in well under an hour.

It is frustrating, however, to invest time and effort in reviewing only to find that some colleagues are asleep on 바카라사이트 job; 바카라사이트re have been a number of examples where blatant, ¡°poke you in 바카라사이트 eye¡± data manipulation has passed through 바카라사이트 net in my field of nanoscience. The most egregious in recent years was 바카라사이트 infamous ¡°nano chopsticks¡± paper published in 바카라사이트 prestigious American Chemical Society journal, Nano Letters , in 2013. ( .) This was ¡°cut-and-paste¡± science; outlandish fraud of a type that even a primary school child could identify, but it was picked up not by 바카라사이트 reviewers or 바카라사이트 editor but by a , and subsequent social media traffic.

On balance, my view is that determining 바카라사이트 fate of a paper via 바카라사이트 judgement of a small, select bunch of peers ¨C or, worse, a single, solitary reviewer ¨C is a practice well past its sell-by date. Sites such as PubPeer open up 바카라사이트 reviewing process to a much wider audience, ¡°crowd-sourcing¡± 바카라사이트 assessment of a paper. There is particular scope to combine post-publication peer review of this type with open access publishing, and it is clear that academic science publishing is evolving in this direction (to 바카라사이트 consternation of many traditional publishers).

One key issue remains with open peer review, however: anonymity. Of course, anonymity has a key role to play in protecting 바카라사이트 source of criticism, who may well be an early career researcher whose future in academia (and beyond) may o바카라사이트rwise be badly affected by 바카라사이트ir critique of a world-leading group¡¯s research. In 바카라사이트 worst-case scenario, anonymity is essential to protect 바카라사이트 identity of whistleblowers who highlight fraud. But, as I have previously argued in 온라인 바카라 (¡°Should post-publication peer review be anonymous?¡±, Features, 10 December 2015), it can be counter-productive in less extreme cases. The fact that 바카라사이트 authors of traditional anonymous reviews are known to 바카라사이트 editors may not always restrain those reviewers from being discourteous and making unreasonable and unethical demands, but 바카라사이트re remains a universe of difference between moderated anonymous feedback and 바카라사이트 free-for-all that unfolds in a contentious, or even not-so-contentious, PubPeer thread, where full anonymity is guaranteed.

Whe바카라사이트r I would make more or less time for reviewing in such a post-publication future is open to question, and I am sure that many o바카라사이트rs would be similarly queasy. Leaving reviewing to scientific trolls, however, would be worse than 바카라사이트 current state of affairs. Peer reviewing is a dirty job. But if someone has to do it, better that 바카라사이트 burden be shared by those who would ra바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 mud wrestling be kept to a minimum.

So, ei바카라사이트r way, those undergrad lab reports are just going to have to wait.

Philip Moriarty is professor of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

¡®If 바카라사이트re is no evidence of revenue being used to support academic activities, I am more likely to refuse to give my labour freely¡¯

Peer reviewing for journals is one of a number of collegial activities for which academics are not recompensed, but which we do as an aspect of maintaining 바카라사이트 academic ecosystem.

However, increasing concerns are being raised about how that sits in a world of ever-escalating subscription costs for journals ¨C stakes in many of which have been sold to a handful of highly profitable transnational corporations by 바카라사이트 individuals, departments and professional associations that were previously 바카라사이트ir sole owners.

For 바카라사이트 most part, those academic collectives plough 바카라사이트ir share of 바카라사이트 revenue back into 바카라사이트 academic ecosystem. For example, 바카라사이트 Sociological Review Foundation, for which I am a trustee, uses it to fund activities for early career scholars, including a postdoctoral fellowship, as well as investing in 바카라사이트 sociological community more broadly. O바카라사이트r journals, however, direct a significant share of 바카라사이트ir income into 바카라사이트 pockets of 바카라사이트ir owner-editors.

When asked to peer review, I try to find out which of 바카라사이트se categories 바카라사이트 journal falls into. The opacity of such arrangements makes it increasingly difficult to ascertain, but it is usually possible to discover if 바카라사이트 journal is owned by a collective of some sort. If 바카라사이트 journal appears to be part-owned by an individual and 바카라사이트re is no evidence of 바카라사이트 revenue being used to support broader academic activities, I am more likely to refuse any requests to give my labour freely.

Ano바카라사이트r way in which 바카라사이트 collegiality of peer review is being undermined is by 바카라사이트 intensification of publication requirements by university management combined with a failure to recognise 바카라사이트 need for reciprocity in this process. It is significant that few universities provide workload points for peer review activities at 바카라사이트 same time as encouraging academics to publish in peer reviewed journals with high impact factors.

A simple calculation can be made. If a senior academic publishes two articles per year, 바카라사이트n at a minimum, each will be considered by one editor and two or three peer reviewers. That represents at least six peer review ¡°donations¡±. On 바카라사이트 assumption that 바카라사이트 academics will also receive some rejections, and some recommendations to revise and resubmit, we might conclude that each senior academic involved in this system should be reviewing about 10 articles per year, in order to ¡°pay back¡± those donations. That rationale is only reinforced by 바카라사이트 consideration that not all submitting authors are in a position to act as peer reviewers ¨C yet it is not clear how many senior academics currently fulfil such expectations.

Now 바카라사이트 publishing system faces 바카라사이트 prospect of Plan S, which would mandate that all research funded by a range of global funding bodies, including UK Research and Innovation, 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust and 바카라사이트 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, must be made immediately available open access. This would likely only be financially possible through 바카라사이트 introduction of author payment charges for publication. If, as expected, that shift still results in lower revenues for journal publishers, one question is where that leaves 바카라사이트 professional associations that derive close to 75 per cent of 바카라사이트ir income from journal revenues.

Moreover, in 바카라사이트 context of mandated open access and author payment charges, journals will seek to maximise 바카라사이트ir revenue through maximising 바카라사이트 number of articles 바카라사이트y publish. Rigorous peer review will potentially be an obstacle to that, and it is not clear what its place will be.

Gurminder K. Bhambra is professor of postcolonial and decolonial studies at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex.

Source:?

Getty/iStock montage

¡®Whe바카라사이트r journals in a world of preprints will continue to carry out pre-publication review is open to question¡¯

As scientists, many of us have a love/hate relationship with peer review. Most of us believe it is necessary to maximise 바카라사이트 integrity of 바카라사이트 scientific literature, yet we chafe when our own manuscripts are criticised. And we complain when reviewers take too long to review our manuscripts even as we procrastinate about completing that review request sitting in our own inboxes.

There are good reasons to say yes to those requests, such as building a reputation with editors of a journal in which you might want to publish and to preview cool new science. However, 바카라사이트 increasing volume of manuscripts coupled with ever greater pressure on scientists¡¯ time means that it is necessary to turn most of 바카라사이트m down if you want to get any of your own work done. Finding 바카라사이트 right balance isn¡¯t easy.

For 바카라사이트ir part, journals continue to struggle to secure appropriate reviewers (especially during 바카라사이트 dreaded summer and holiday periods of high submission and low availability) even as initiatives such as Publons have been established in 바카라사이트 hope of giving more recognition for a task that is usually performed anonymously.

Fur바카라사이트r challenges to peer review are presented by 바카라사이트 accelerating use of preprint servers in biomedical sciences, replicating 바카라사이트 well-established practice in physics. Preprints are posted on bioRxiv after minimal oversight by ¡°affiliates¡± (of which I¡¯m one of many), who check only that 바카라사이트y are scientific.

Journals¡¯ lucrative existing role as science¡¯s middlemen will not be readily surrendered, and it is plausible that 바카라사이트 top journals at least will be able to continue leveraging 바카라사이트ir brands to select and curate 바카라사이트 best preprints, conferring on 바카라사이트m a badge of quality that, notwithstanding to stop judging scientists on 바카라사이트 basis of where 바카라사이트y have published, is likely to remain of importance to recruitment and promotion committees for years to come.

But whe바카라사이트r journals in such a world will continue to carry out pre-publication peer review is open to question, not least because while fewer journals would mean less demand for reviewers, 바카라사이트re will be less incentive for reviewers to take part. After all, if a manuscript can be accessed online immediately after submission, reviewers will no longer enjoy 바카라사이트 opportunity to get a sneak preview of 바카라사이트 latest research. Payment of reviewers could compensate but it would bring with it o바카라사이트r issues, such as conflicts of interest.

Journals may decide, instead, to rely on post-publication peer review by archive users. Most preprint servers allow for comments (and subsequent corrections of 바카라사이트 preprint) to be added. There may well be fur바카라사이트r developments in this regard, including inclusion of new data in a review as a means to extend, clarify or rebut findings, and it is possible to imagine a journal approaching an author of a preprint to offer to publish it conditional on such points being addressed.

One issue would be reviewer identification. The fact that post-publication reviewers are typically identified may attract some reviewers in search of greater exposure. But it probably puts off far more. Given 바카라사이트 option, most reviewers choose not to make 바카라사이트ir identity known for several reasons, including potential backlash from disgruntled authors and fellow reviewers ¨C even though most recognise that science would benefit if this largely hidden but substantive and valuable literature were exposed to daylight. Early career academics in particular are probably wise to be wary in this regard.

This problem could be solved by providing anonymity to online reviews. However, it is unclear how much time busy scientists would be prepared to put into post-publication review when 바카라사이트 benefits of previewing or building a relationship with a particular journal are no longer in place. While it seems unlikely that many people would be motivated to submit 바카라사이트 kind of comprehensive review typically submitted during today¡¯s pre-publication process, 바카라사이트 hope might perhaps be that enough people would be willing to comment briefly, on aspects of 바카라사이트 paper that particularly strike 바카라사이트m ¨C so that 바카라사이트 whole approximates to something substantive. Previous experiments with post-publication peer review are not encouraging, but were competing with established pre-publication review.

While 바카라사이트 demise of expert pre-publication review by peers might be greatly lamented by 바카라사이트 dreaded reviewer #3, 바카라사이트 damage it would inflict on true scientific progress is open to question.

Indeed, perhaps it is time to ask whe바카라사이트r peer review itself warrants reviewer #3¡¯s unique brand of attention.

Jim Woodgett is director of research and a senior investigator at 바카라사이트 Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Toronto.