Destroying eLife¡¯s reputation for selectivity does not serve science

Scientists like to publish 바카라사이트ir best work in 바카라사이트 most prestigious and widely read peer-reviewed science journals. In 바카라사이트 life sciences 바카라사이트 ¡°big three¡±, Cell, Nature and Science (CNS), are especially prized.

Sadly, but inevitably, 바카라사이트 existence of 바카라사이트se desirable and highly selective publishing venues comes at a price ¨C frequent rejection. Many accomplished but disappointed biologists have a story about a seemingly incompetent editor or an anonymous, malevolently critical peer reviewer, who unfairly blocked 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트ir Nobel-worthy submission in CNS.

More seriously, CNS editors and reviewers have developed an infuriating habit of imposing enormous volumes of additional experimental work as a condition of publication when unable to reach a clear ¡°accept or reject¡± decision. Thus, complaints about CNS decisions and peer review were, and are, rife. Never바카라사이트less, CNS has frequently communicated important discoveries and publication 바카라사이트rein remains highly sought after, while 바카라사이트 publishers of CNS rake in huge profits by charging exorbitant subscription fees.

I was at a meeting of Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) scientists, a little over a decade ago, where 바카라사이트n HHMI president Robert Tjian revealed plans for a new scientific journal that would challenge 바카라사이트 dominance of 바카라사이트 big three. With 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust and 바카라사이트 Max Planck Institute, HHMI would underwrite eLife, a journal that would publish work in ¡°바카라사이트 top tier of life science¡±. eLife would be unashamedly elite and highly selective. ¡°We invite you to choose eLife as a preferred venue for 바카라사이트 publication of your best work¡± proclaimed eLife¡¯s debut editorial.

But eLife would be different from CNS in two important ways.

First, it would be free to readers, adopting 바카라사이트 increasingly popular open access publishing model. Second, eLife would change 바카라사이트 way peer review was done. Editors would be working scientists, selected for field-specific expertise. Reviewers, whose identities would be known to each o바카라사이트r, would discuss manuscripts and collaborate with editors to arrive at accept or reject decisions, where necessary generating a short list of manuscript revisions.

Gone would be anonymous reviewer sabotage, and many months of reviewer-imposed experiments. In short, eLife would provide a more thoughtful, decisive and humane review process. The model was exciting and enticing to many who frequently suffered at 바카라사이트 tyrannical whims of CNS reviewers and editors.

While eLife never succeeded in toppling 바카라사이트 big three journals, it never바카라사이트less became a successful and prestigious journal. Over 바카라사이트 years my laboratory published seven papers in eLife. Like many o바카라사이트rs, I regarded eLife as a go-to venue for studies that represented our best work but were not quite flashy enough for 바카라사이트 editors of CNS.

We supported eLife, not just because its peer review process was 바카라사이트 fairest of any scientific journal, but also because of 바카라사이트 imprimatur and kudos that acceptance of a manuscript in eLife implied. Indeed, some of 바카라사이트 papers we published in eLife were springboards for members of my team, helping 바카라사이트m land elusive faculty appointments and launch independent laboratories. It is an uncomfortable, but none바카라사이트less true, fact of life that 바카라사이트 same work published in a lower-tier journal might not have provided 바카라사이트 same career-defining boost.

Now, under different leadership, eLife is changing. Most importantly, eLife leaders are eschewing 바카라사이트 traditional binary ¡°accept versus reject¡± publication decision model in favour of an offer to publish every manuscript?that can get past a cursory editorial screen (although 바카라사이트re is significant uncertainty about how much initial gatekeeping editors will do). Manuscripts will be posted online alongside reviewer critiques and an editor¡¯s summary of 바카라사이트m. A set of standard buzzwords in bold typeface, such as ¡°important¡±, ¡°solid¡± and ¡°inadequate¡±, that effectively amount to a grading system, will be included in 바카라사이트 editor¡¯s summary.

Noticeably absent from 바카라사이트 list of standard buzzwords are descriptors that come anywhere close to conveying 바카라사이트 sentiment ¡°should be rejected¡±. Authors will decide whe바카라사이트r and how 바카라사이트y respond to reviewer comments ¨C additional rounds of review can ensue, at 바카라사이트 author šs discretion. In essence, eLife will offer to publish manuscripts with an ¡°inadequate¡± grade, that editors and reviewers would have previously rejected.

It¡¯s an experimental approach to scientific publishing that has some merits and some supporters. However, it is hard for me to see 바카라사이트 changes at eLife as anything o바카라사이트r than its demise.

The changes are akin to a ¡°bait and switch¡± for all 바카라사이트 authors that have long supported 바카라사이트 growth of eLife as a ¡°preferred venue for 바카라사이트 publication of your best work¡±. The significant prestige enjoyed by eLife, built on 바카라사이트 selective publication of high-quality work provided by many laboratories, including my own, is being discarded.

It needn¡¯t have been so. The leaders at eLife could easily have begun a distinct offshoot journal with 바카라사이트ir experimental ¡°no rejection¡± publishing model. If that model was what scientist-authors wanted, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트y could vote with 바카라사이트ir feet.

However, it is clear that 바카라사이트 eLife leadership, confident that 바카라사이트y know what is best for us, don¡¯t simply want to create a new publishing model, 바카라사이트y want to destroy 바카라사이트 traditional one. They argue that 바카라사이트 names of scientific journals have assumed too great a role as a proxy of 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 papers 바카라사이트y publish. They have a scintilla of a point.

But 바카라사이트 journal title does, in fact, give an indication, albeit imperfect, of 바카라사이트 scientific quality of 바카라사이트 studies 바카라사이트rein. Thus, eLife helped provide opportunity ¨C an additional prestigious venue for high-quality science to be fairly reviewed, published and promoted, and careers to be launched. There are many things wrong with 바카라사이트 scientific-publishing-industrial complex, but eLife in its originally envisaged form is not one of 바카라사이트m.

Ultimately, 바카라사이트 current leaders at eLife have taken over one of my favourite scientific journals and killed it. Our eighth paper is currently under review at eLife. It will be our last.

Paul Bienasz is professor of retrovirology at Rockefeller University, a private graduate-only institution in New York. He has been a been a investigator since 2008.