The peer review system is often unfair and biased. Very often, when I am asked to review a paper, I personally know the authors. Shall I abuse this to "get even"? Shall I be more strict because I actually value the author as a scientist, as a person, as a colleague? Remaining impartial is close to impossible. Also, since the author does not know who I am, I cannot have an open discussion, honestly pointing out my view of things, or how I understand the theory.
Sometimes, to circumvent these problems, I bluntly state my name in the review. A move which is usually suppressed by editors-in-chief. More often, however, I feel I have to turn down the review.
Conversely, one often finds reviewers doing a really sloppy job: they cannot be criticised, so they review a paper in (what appears to be) a few minutes, criticise parts of the paper unjustly (due to missing parts of the argument laid out in the paper), or are not familiar enough with the field to criticise justly. This is what one almost invariably observes in robotics conference reviews in, e.g., ICRA, IROS. This is the major reason why I do not like to publish there and why such papers are often not (and indeed should not be) acknowledged as publications on par with journal papers.
The often-mentioned double-closed approach seemingly solves one of the two issues---but only seemingly, since even there I can often, in about 50% of the cases, guess who the author is.
A way out would be to use a double-open approach, in which reviewers are acknowledged and, better still, reviews or commentaries are published. The new, open-access journal series Frontiersin uses the former approach, and it appears to works well.
An improvement on this approach would be to use a grading system, in which everyone---with names being named, of course---can comment on or grade papers online. This will not only lead to majority voting, but also to accreditation of accreditors. Of course, blind votes must be prevented.
Wikipedia lists such ventures under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Peer_Commentary, of which Behavioral and Brain Sciences, a journal initiated by (the legendary open-access promoter) Stevan Harnad, was a brilliant example (unfortunately, Cambridge University Press seem to have decided to close its traditional open access, and now papers cost a daring $45). The journal "Papers in physics" uses a comparative approach, I think, but I don't know that journal (nor the field) so I cannot comment on it.
The suggestion would therefore be, that a "journal" would consist of an open access web platform where logins are given to accredited users (that step requires some thinking). Each user can post an article or a commentary to an article, and a rating system along the lines of RG's silly score (silly, since at RG it is heavily based on discussion ratings, and only very lightly on publication and impact factor (caveat!)) will lead to something like an impact factor for the paper. Can a person build a reputation on reviewing only? I think not; the effort in writing a scientific article is much higher, while its impact (=influence on others) is much more profound, and should be honoured accordingly. Yet, only publishing without engaging in discussions is not right, too.
Advantages: fair reviews; but also a better understanding of the papers, since commentaries of peers are included. And, much more impact of papers since those papers which are controversial or important will have high grades. High grades are better earned in such a way than by being referred to from papers in obscure conferences!
It is easy to be critical when your name is not revealed, no matter how unjust it is. It is easy not to accept a paper if one does not take the time to read it. But when I review a paper with repairable flaws and do not point them out, my review is worthless. That does not help me, too. In effect, careless reviewing is punished (rather, not honoured).
What kind of criticism do you want to out which you dare not share openly? Refer to an own paper. Why not, it would add to putting the submission in perspective. islike the paper? That is great, as long as you can find the right arguments. You are right in saying that one would think twice before outing a negative review, but also before outing a positive one! And exactly that is the goal.
Patrick, my humble opinion is that the reviewer should be blind to the author(s) identity. granted in some specialty, specialty areas, the author may be correctly guessed, but it is now a global research community, and one does not always know who the people are that are publishibg, even in your topics of expertise. As someone who submits manuscripts in good faith, believing that my reviewers will provide a sound evalauation of the science, methodology and results of my work, I trust that, with blind review, my reviewers are similarly opinioned.
granted I am a dinosaur, so perhaps the way of the future is open access to all, though why was it we moved from references to referees, who could be asked in confidence?
From what I read you seem to more or less agree with my plea, putting forth somewhat different, contemplative arguments with the same final goal. What's more, indeed the current review and publishing process, with high-impact journals usually being closed (in my fields of research), is based on past models, and we can easily solve the issues at hand. But for that a common acknowledgement is required that the existing review and publication approaches are oudated and harmful.
Also, most people reacting in this thread seem to be associated with research institutes whcih can afford the too expensive journal fees, and we all have access, albeit sometimes somewhat cumbersome, to most journals.
But what about rising countries or less affluent universities? They have no chance to access publications by, e.g., elsevier, and are left out of a key part of research. This clearly leads to an increased schism between research at richer and poorer universities, *for the wrong reasons*.
I think it is our duty to put PDFs of accepted papers on our own websites, and to my best of knowledge I do so myself and convince my lab personnel---I also applaud RGs effort in that direction (but their impact will be, I think, low).
By combining open access with open review, we may actually move towards a scheme where it is easier to assess the quality if publications---of course, there are too many papers on any odd topic to know them all---and we could, in such a scheme, do our best to draw attention to our own paper and so get better votes. The post-publication review system, as Lucas rightly calls it, will be a way ahead.
Your arguments are strong and convincing---against the author-pays principle, not for the reader-pays principle, since your method (which everyone uses) breaks the official rules.
But it only brings me back to the original idea. Getting rid of peer review publishing through arxiv-like platforms allows us to have open access for all, and a review process which gives more than a few peers a chance.
I have been and am editor for various journals and conferences. In this process, finding a good reviewer is always a daunting job, esp. if the article is not precisely in one's area of expertise. It takes many days, and often the first choice reviewers reject to review.
However, as editor one usually wants to get the best reviewer, meaning choosing the more senior peers. That often works for journals, but not for conferences (which is one reason why conferences should never count as ISI publications).
By selecting three (some editors only take two!) reviewers, one leaves out on many others, who possibly are more knowledgeable in the area or for the specific paper. My role as an editor is paramount, but my knowledge is, of course, limited. If I pick a wrong reviewer...
Whats the use of peer review, If opinion of reviewers is not respected? Sometimes bias is too apparent.
I submitted a paper in a reputed journal (not open access) , in about 5 days it was sent for peer review. After about a month editor conveys that the paper is to be published after revision. Reviewer's comments were also attached. Reviewer 1 : minor changes in formatting and references , Reviewer 2 : suggested 4 corrections and improvements. I submit revised manuscript. After about 3 days I get mail that the revised manuscript has been sent to reviewers again. 2 months gone by, one fine evening I get this mail from the editor "Though the reviewers comments are positive about your paper we will not be able to publish........................................". It was not very pleasing to see that the paper went to reviewers twice, their recommendations were positive and but still editor rejected it on flimsy grounds.
There was, a few days ago, a question here in researchgate.org regarding the existence of editorial "mafias", touching this very issue of fairness of the peer review process. I presented a case, something that happened to me recently with one of my papers, which I submitted for publication in the Journals of the American Physical Society. One of the members of this community thanked me for presenting evidence. Another one recommended me to create our own online journal. I prepared an answer for that, but the question disappeared like one of those virtual particles in empty space. Here I see an opportunity to present my answer to that suggestion, because I think it is relevant. Changing the peer review process is a necessity not only for scientists but for the community that supports scientific research. I am going to publish the answer I prepared for that suggestion of creating our own online journal. Some parts will be out of context, but, in general , I think it will be quite understandable.
"
Is that really an option?
Oscar Chavoya Aceves,
Keywords: science, politics,
Yours is, apparently, a solution to the issue at hand; I claim this is only an appearance. The current state of affairs were scientific progress falls under control of a relatively small number of (real or fabricated) grey eminences is an issue that requires serious examination and an appropriate solution. Suggesting alternatives is just a way to dismiss claims that might be justified and divert attention. A decision from an editor or an editorial board can have a long term destructive effect in the academic career of a young scientist and all of it for what? To protect special interests or views that for whatever reason are preferred by an editor or a group of them? At the end of the day, science is a social effort: scientific journals and organizations are, ultimately, supported with resources coming from people's work, and they have a responsibility to the national an global communities that support them. Scientists, physicists in particular are very vocal, criticizing the Catholic Church, because of Galileo's process, and others, like Giordano Bruno's, who died at the stake (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) however, I have evidence that they are not that different.
"The author is free to publish his views in the electronic arxiv..." that was the suggestion of the editor. Moreover: "...where his views can be discussed by experts..." Was he an expert? It is like the author is free to go and challenge our concept of magnetic moment in Mars. In 2004 I submitted a paper to arxiv.org. The title: "Logical refutation of the EPR argument." It was deleted in a matter of hours. The justification: "The content is inappropriate." I reviewed the content of my paper in search of something that might be considered inappropriate. I did not find anything inappropriate; I made a few cosmetic changes and resubmitted, only to find that the paper was deleted one more time, with a warning: "If you attempt to publish this again your privileges will be suspended." (This quote is only exact in meaning. That happened ten years ago and I do not remember all the details. Unfortunately the originals of this conversation were stored in the email server of Phoenix Union High School District were I was working at that time.) As you can imagine, I resubmitted and, as you can imagine, my privileges were suspended for nine years. I got my privileges back this year of 2013 (at my request), with a restriction: I need endorsement to publish anything at arxiv.org and a warning: "Do not publish logical refutation of the EPR argument here." The very same paper has been published by Physics Essays mutatis mutandis: as Logical refutation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rossen argument. Why is it that this paper cannot be published in arxiv.org? Is it because of the ongoing research on quantum teleportation, were billions of dollars have been invested? http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_project.php?id=2862 (When a society becomes corrupt do not expect the scientists to remain virtuous.)
I have had a paper rejected on the grounds that I was a school teacher! Once I got a communication like this: "Mr. Chavoya...we don't know if we should address you as Dr. because you are a high school teacher." There are institutions that require papers published in peer reviewed journals to graduate a student. Should we remain indifferent to the damage that the decision of an editor can cause to a scientific career and, in general, to the progress of science. It might not be in every case, however, since I started publishing years ago, I have memories of editors acting like if our science were something of their personal property. Worst: there is no guarantee that they are not scavenging ideas from the papers they reject to publish them later. Rejecting a paper on such specious grounds is unethical. Why should we trust that our intellectual property or scientific credit is safe with them?
Of course, if it is about their pet projects, they do not even wait for peer review. Remember those fast neutrinos in the HLC? What was the cost of that machine and what is the cost of the experiments performed there? Who in the world will be able to replicate their experiments? What if they are using the wrong models to process data? Apparently that's an insignificant detail. We have a scientific leadership that is more concerned with preserving the prestige of their demigods and, perhaps, a continuous flow of cash to their pet projects.
We don't need to create new online journals but change our approach on how scientific knowledge is validated at the eyes of the scientific community. Creating new online journals is not a solution, but a diversion. Why is it that people will not speak out and share their stories? What are they afraid of? I am sure I am not the only one that has endured this sort of mistreatment. Nowadays, more than ever before in the history of human kind we depend on a sound system to coordinate scientific efforts. Science has made it possible to develop the means to destroy millions of human lives, animals and vegetable species, and to pollute our habitat to a point that is most probably irreversible. The existence of editorial mafias in scientific journals, for those reasons, is not an issue we should take lightly: because we are running out of time. We must not allow them to continue demoralizing genuine scientific efforts."
If you don't mind, Pandelis Perakakis , I will consider myself invited.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles