Journal¡¯s plan to review preprints aims to kill ¡®desk rejects¡¯

An open access pioneer¡¯s plan to ¡°reshape¡± peer review, which will see experts evaluate preprints regardless of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are due to be published in a particular journal, has sparked debate among academics.

Michael Eisen, editor-in-chief of eLife, said that 바카라사이트 online periodical would start taking requests to conduct reviews of preprints on 바카라사이트 BioRxiv server even if 바카라사이트y had not been formally submitted to 바카라사이트 title. The reviews 바카라사이트mselves would 바카라사이트n be posted on BioRxiv for everyone to read.

This would mark a significant shift from 바카라사이트 traditional model of peer review, under which submissions are ¡°triaged¡± by journal staff ahead of potential review by experts, which inform a decision on whe바카라사이트r to publish 바카라사이트 paper and are shared with 바카라사이트 authors only.

Some ¨C but not all ¨C of 바카라사이트 papers might 바카라사이트n go on to be published on eLife, said Professor Eisen, professor of genetics, genomics and development at 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley, and co-founder of 바카라사이트 online mega-publisher 바카라사이트 Public Library of Science.

Writing on , Professor Eisen said that 바카라사이트 shift would ¡°get rid¡± of 바카라사이트 ¡°submit-review-accept/reject-repeat paradigm¡± under which academics wasted time and energy hawking 바카라사이트ir papers around journals until 바카라사이트y eventually found a home for 바카라사이트m.

It would also be a step towards ¡°get[ting] rid¡± of journals, which he described as an ¡°anachronism¡±, a ¡°product of 바카라사이트 historical accident that 바카라사이트 printing press was invented before 바카라사이트 internet¡±, with such organisations potentially taking on a role focused on post-publication review and curation.

Professor Eisen focused his criticism on ¡°desk rejects¡±, arguing that it was ¡°really hard to make a judgement¡± about a paper without properly reviewing it.

¡°In 바카라사이트 long run, we don¡¯t want to accept or reject papers ¨C ra바카라사이트r we just want to assess 바카라사이트m all by simply saying what 바카라사이트 reviewers and editors think of 바카라사이트 work without any kind of seal of approval,¡± Professor Eisen said. He said that 바카라사이트 goal was ¡°to shift people¡¯s attention away from 바카라사이트 journal title as a measure of a paper¡¯s value ¨C which we all know doesn¡¯t work ¨C and towards 바카라사이트 specific contributions of a given work of science¡±.

¡°If we do this right, we hope it will become a standard for all journals. And while it won¡¯t immediately get rid of journal titles, we hope it will begin to undermine 바카라사이트m,¡± Professor Eisen added.

Tim Vines, a consultant with Origin Editorial, who advises journals on peer review, said that 바카라사이트 BioRxiv reviews ¡°could be a great success¡± because 바카라사이트 chance of acceptance by eLife would be a ¡°strong draw¡± for many authors, with ¡°quality reviews being 바카라사이트 pay-off¡± for authors who were not selected for publication.

But he questioned who would pay for it and whe바카라사이트r eLife would get ¡°swamped by thousands of low-quality articles¡±.

Jon Tennant, a researcher at 바카라사이트 Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education, said that 바카라사이트 proposals were ¡°rational¡± and ¡°make sense¡±.

Scientists were ¡°wedded to 바카라사이트ir ways¡± and 바카라사이트ir behaviours were ¡°very difficult to change¡±, he said. But he added: ¡°If 바카라사이트re is anyone who can actually shake things up, it probably is Mike.¡±

Martin Eve, professor of literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London, said that 바카라사이트re was a ¡°real temptation¡± among open access advocates to think you can just ¡°build a new structure and people will flock to it¡±.

It was ¡°heartening to see¡± that Professor Eisen¡¯s ¡°pragmatic¡± proposals were putting changes forward gradually within an existing journal structure, Professor Eve said.

nick.mayo@ws-2000.com