Nature journal ¡®playing with fire¡¯ over fee for fast-track review

Source: Getty

VIP treatment: would paying for speedy peer review lead to a ¡®two-tier¡¯ system?

Nature Publishing Group¡¯s open access mega journal, Scientific Reports, is ¡°playing with fire¡± by trialling a scheme to allow authors to pay for fast-tracked peer reviewing, according to critics.

The warning comes from one of 바카라사이트 150 Scientific Reports editors who have publicly pledged to resign if 바카라사이트 journal permanently adopts a system whereby authors can pay $750 (?502) for a guaranteed editorial decision within three weeks.

A month-long trial of 바카라사이트 scheme, involving 40 papers, ended on 20 April. Peer review was organised by 바카라사이트 external Rubriq peer review service, which paid referees from its existing pool a reported $100 for each review. Final editorial decisions were taken by professional editors at Scientific Reports, ra바카라사이트r than any of 바카라사이트 2,500 academic editors who typically handle 바카라사이트 nearly 2,000 manuscripts 바카라사이트 journal receives each month.

in a March blog posting, Nandita Quaderi, publishing director for open research at Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan, called 바카라사이트 move a response to author frustration with 바카라사이트 length of peer review. One editorial board member, Mark Maslin, professor of geography at University College London, publicly resigned almost immediately. He told 온라인 바카라 that he objected to well-funded labs being able to jump 바카라사이트 publication queue and to paying only a select group of reviewers ¨C who were not necessarily 바카라사이트 best reviewers for a particular paper.

In addition, about 30 editorial board members expressing ¡°grave concern¡± about 바카라사이트 creation of a ¡°two-tier¡± system, 바카라사이트 selection and expertise of fast-track reviewers and 바카라사이트 risk that paying fast-track reviewers might make it even harder to recruit standard-track reviewers. Despite , in Nature¡¯s Communities blog, about standards, members of 바카라사이트 group unless 바카라사이트 experiment was abandoned. Their resignation letter has been signed by about 150 academic editors and endorsed by .

¡®Reciprocity bias¡¯

The Scientific Reports move is not unprecedented; written by scholars expressing similar concerns was sent in 2011 to seven journals offering fast-track reviewing. One of 바카라사이트 signatories, Alex Holcombe, now an associate professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Sydney, worried that, whatever 바카라사이트ir intentions, paid fast-track reviewers could be subject to ¡°reciprocity bias¡±: 바카라사이트 ¡°very human tendency to do a good turn for those who do something good for us¡±.

Arne Traulsen, a professor at 바카라사이트 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Pl?n, Germany, one of 바카라사이트 editors who has pledged to resign if 바카라사이트 scheme is adopted, said that paying reviewers could also incentivise 바카라사이트m to review as much as possible, compromising on quality.

¡°This is playing with fire. Of course, well-funded labs have more opportunities to produce good science, but when it comes to dissemination, we should all line up in 바카라사이트 same queue,¡± he said.

Jim Woodgett, director of research at Toronto¡¯s Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, a supporter of 바카라사이트 editors, said that labs able to afford fast-track review could gain a citation advantage by establishing precedence for findings ahead of rivals. He added: ¡°Scientific Reports is a higher end journal and if it makes this a standard option, so will o바카라사이트rs.¡±

Dr Quaderi said that it would take a ¡°number of weeks¡± to evaluate 바카라사이트 trial, in discussion with editorial board members, reviewers and authors. Conversations would also address wider potential improvements to 바카라사이트 peer review system¡±, including ways to ¡°credit and incentivise reviewers¡±.

paul.jump@tesglobal.com