Reviewers should stop doing 바카라사이트 market¡¯s dirty work

I¡¯m planning some renovations in 바카라사이트 house, so I¡¯m learning about party wall surveyors. Their role is to resolve disputes between neighbours. But, strikingly, no matter who appoints 바카라사이트m or pays for 바카라사이트ir services, party wall surveyors do not act on behalf of ei바카라사이트r neighbour. Ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트y act ¡°for 바카라사이트 wall¡±.

Science, too, is a system of interlocking contributions that can be seriously undermined by mistakes and shoddy practice. Hence, surveying 바카라사이트 research proposals and results produced by our fellow scientific builders is an important aspect of our work. As a mid-career UK academic, each year I?accept dozens of peer review requests (and decline many o바카라사이트rs) and sit on evaluation panels at least once.

Scientists rarely formulate 바카라사이트 purpose of 바카라사이트ir scrutiny with such clarity as party wall surveyors, but few of us would disagree that peer review is meant to be for nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 author, 바카라사이트 funder nor 바카라사이트 publisher considering 바카라사이트ir work, but ra바카라사이트r ¡°for 바카라사이트 science¡± alone. Thus, in an ideal world, a peer reviewer is in essence a collaborator, serving to improve ideas and correct results and conclusions.

I would argue, however, that this is increasingly not 바카라사이트 main motivation for peer review. Instead, as science becomes more expensive and institutionalised, peer review increasingly serves 바카라사이트 bureaucratic need to evaluate science, as a means of determining how scarce funding and positions should be distributed.

Resources for science will always be limited, and 바카라사이트 ever-increasing deficit of secure academic jobs clearly reflects that ¨C although it is also driven in part by 바카라사이트 misguided notion that depriving people of job security makes 바카라사이트m better scientists. These scarcities, in turn, motivate 바카라사이트 creation of an artificial deficit in 바카라사이트 ¡°markers of esteem¡± that inform funding and appointment decisions: most notably, space in highly selective research journals such as Science and Nature.

The pool of available resources is determined by politicians, administrators and publishers, but 바카라사이트re is nothing wrong with scientists¡¯ getting involved in 바카라사이트 distribution; as 바카라사이트 Haldane principle states, research funding decisions are best left to scientists. However, it is not always easy to spot 바카라사이트 difference between 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트 market (resource distribution) and of science itself when you have been conditioned to view and evaluate research as a controllable process of generating ¡°deliverables¡±, whose value is known immediately (or even in advance), ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 messy and unpredictable foray into 바카라사이트 unknown that it really?is.

The uncomfortable question that needs asking is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 deficit of resources in 바카라사이트 system is a bigger problem for 바카라사이트 science than any flaws in 바카라사이트 reasoning, data or scientific productivity that we spot in 바카라사이트 work under our review. If this is 바카라사이트 case, agreeing to evaluate 바카라사이트 work without challenging 바카라사이트 status?quo might do more harm than good. Errors still need to be corrected and bad science weeded out. But am?I really acting ¡°for 바카라사이트 science¡± if I?dutifully undermine 바카라사이트 ¡°excellence¡±, ¡°novelty¡± and ¡°impact¡± of a peer¡¯s ideas and results, knowing full well that 바카라사이트se metrics are ra바카라사이트r disconnected from 바카라사이트 true values of good science: creativity, reproducibility and integrity?

It is unlikely that 바카라사이트 system can be disrupted through peer review alone. But small steps are still possible. Most importantly, I?remind myself that, as a reviewer, it is in my power not just to critique, but also to advocate for my peers and 바카라사이트ir work.

If I?show enthusiasm for a manuscript, ra바카라사이트r than declaring it not ¡°exciting enough¡± for a prestigious journal, I¡¯ll give a chance for its junior lead author to progress 바카라사이트ir career ¨C and for science to retain 바카라사이트ir talent. If I?refuse to penalise a colleague¡¯s productivity when 바카라사이트ir experimental approach took longer than afforded by a funding cycle, or if 바카라사이트y spent time pursuing a risky but exciting hypo바카라사이트sis that did not live up to validation, I¡¯ll contribute to making science a more thorough, ambitious and honest enterprise.

And if I?champion a grant proposal ra바카라사이트r than meticulously listing all its minor flaws, I¡¯ll make it harder to reject it based on technicalities. So even if it does not get funded, my comments will highlight 바카라사이트 huge number of solid proposals that cannot be pursued because of 바카라사이트 unsustainably limited funding pool.

Of course, peer review cannot be all about advocacy. Choosing 바카라사이트 right balance is tricky, but for lack of a better strategy, gauging where 바카라사이트 purpose of a review maps on 바카라사이트 spectrum between 바카라사이트 needs of science and those of 바카라사이트 market could help. I?have also come to 바카라사이트 conclusion that it¡¯s not too big a sin to err on 바카라사이트 side of advocacy ¨C particularly since, as a community, we tend currently to do 바카라사이트 opposite.

The added bonus of advocating for fellow scientists and 바카라사이트ir science through peer review is that even if it doesn¡¯t immediately lead to more funding and jobs, it will make academia a kinder and more positive place. And as positive environments boost creativity and promote healthy risk-taking, this amounts to acting for science.

The author has chosen to remain anonymous.