PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. The Peer-Review Reviewed by Wim D’Haeze, Ph.D. We are all aware of the fact that scientists are obliged to publish their new findings in respected, scientific journals, which are considered as the prime source of information about scientific advances. Most often, manuscripts are subject to extensive peer-review prior to publication. This implies that the journal’s editor will forward the most promising manuscripts to two to three external reviewers, and inquires a judgment concerning acceptability of the current manuscript for publication in the respective journal. As part of that peer-review process, reviewers generally check manuscripts for major errors, inconsistencies, scientific merit, and how the presented results support the conclusions. Journal editors and many scientists consider the time consumption of the peer-review system as worthwhile assuming that it may filter the scientifically sound manuscripts from the junk ones. Upon an initial inspection one may think, “Nothing wrong with that!” Indeed, it is always useful when unprejudiced and impartial scientists provide authors with constructive criticism and useful suggestions, which will undoubtedly improve the quality of the respective manuscript and/or fuel future research. However, the reality may have given a rather bitter taste to many members of the scientific community. In my opinion, the peer-review system in its current state, applied by the gross of the scientific journals, is in many aspects unfair, undemocratic, and old-fashioned. Uncomfortable situations may arise already in the very beginning of the process, more precisely when manuscripts are submitted to the editor of the authors’ first choice journal. Of course, editors have and should have the exclusive right to decide about which manuscripts will eventually be published in their journal, but rather frequently, editors simply do not allow the initiation of a peer-review process based on poor arguments, as for instance, “The scope is not suitable for the broad public of our journal,” or “Due to space limitations we cannot consider the manuscript for peer-review.” Even so the authors, who are thought to be the experts in their area of research, are more than convinced that the scope is perfectly suitable for publication in a particular journal, in case the editor claims it is not, there is no discussion possible and the manuscript will get stuck in the very beginning of the pipeline. Is this fair and what are the criteria to support such a decision? Which arguments are taken into account to reject manuscript A, and not manuscripts B, with a scope that is maybe even less suitable for the same broad public? Does any journal describe a clear definition of what is meant with ‘a broad public’? So far, I haven’t seen any. Yes, of course enough scientific journals exist, and in essence it is not a big deal to reshape a manuscript and submit it to another, similar journal, but nevertheless, such experiences may induce some disappointments in the author’s minds. Thus, authors should be delighted if their manuscript reaches the desk of the peer-reviewers! Or shouldn’t they? In fact, who are those reviewers? The authors will not be able to answer this question since the reviewers are anonymous to the authors. However, the reviewers may know the author’s names and affiliations. Why does it actually accomplish? Sure, in case the reviewers support the research and provide the authors with constructive criticism, it is not a major point of discussion. And, of course, manuscripts may exhibit considerable flows, and as a consequence, it is the task and responsibility of the reviewers to notice and mention that. But—and it is not unreasonable to mention often—reviewers are the authors’ scientific competitors and jealousy may induce them to write tough reports, thereby requiring them to do the “impossible experiment.” In some cases, reviewer’s comments arise because they did not properly understand the current work, because they are not familiar with previously published research, because they could not dedicate enough time to it, or because they are just nasty. And the editor? The editor tends to follow the advice of the peer-reviewers, since they are the other experts in the field. If this happens, in any case, publication of the current manuscript will be at least postponed, if not rejected. What are the rights of the authors in case the reviewers are clearly wrong in one or more aspects of their judgments? What recourse are the authors allowed to undertake? Under those circumstances, authors either accept the report, and submit their work to an editor of another suitable journal, or they don’t accept it and complain to the editor. Most probably, that is the stage where the major obstacles arise. First of all, there is little chance that the editor will permit a true exchange of thoughts between the reviewers and the authors. Secondly, if such a discussion is allowed to take place, all communications between the authors and the reviewers need to pass through the editor because of anonymity concerns. Thirdly, because the reviewers are believed to be honest and correct in their comments and judgments concerning manuscripts, the editors often tend to accept their statements almost as a law (even though they indeed may be wrong). Consequently, a defense originated by the authors is not perceived as strong enough to neutralize the reviewers’ comments. And, moreover, if as part of the discussion the authors’ replies are send via the editor to the reviewers, the latter will not step back from their statements and only repeat them, which results in a cumbersome experience for the authors. We all need to wonder whether these practices should still be acceptable in the 21st century? Communicating new findings to the scientific community in the form of a publication is pivotal and important for the development of that community. Unfortunately, this crucial process is somehow governed by an unfair, closed-minded, and old-fashioned system of peer-review in its common and current state! Per discipline, editors and scientists of all levels should take time to exchange their experiences, thoughts and wishes in respect to the peer-review procedure of manuscripts. One of the supporting pillars of the scientific community is the ability to discuss with each other freely and to engage in the unbiased exchange of experiences. A new, honest and universal peer-review system should be designed by which, if desired, the report of the reviewers and the reply to the reviewers’ comments is actively discussed with an open mind, in the presence of the editor-in-charge. This freedom will not only give the authors the possibility to present, explain, and defend their new findings properly, but it will also allow the reviewers to carefully understand and appreciate the current research topic. Taking the presently available communication technologies into account, an active and real-time discussion between persons scattered allover the world is indeed feasible. I do understand that this way may require an increased time and labor commitment from all people involved, but I am convinced that an active and constructive discussion about a manuscript will undoubtedly be fruitful for the scientific community. It will also lead to constructive remarks that will enhance the scientific merit of the manuscript to be published. In addition, such a revised peer-review system may help to diminish the awkward experiences that arise during the peer-review process and this improvement will be beneficial to us all. ### Wim D’Haeze, Ph.D. Dr. D'Haeze is a molecular microbiologist with a strong interest in general microbiology and microbial genetics. He received his doctoral degree at the University of Gent (Belgium) and his Ph.D. thesis was focused on molecular aspects of the symbiotic interaction between the Gram-negative bacterium Azorhizobium caulinodans and the tropical legume Sesbania rostrata that results in biological nitrogen fixation. To date, Dr. D'Haeze is a post-doctoral research associate at the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center (The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia) and his current research deals with the structural and functional characterization of complex rhizobial surface polysaccharides. He has been invited to give seminars during several international conferences abroad, publishes in recognized international journals, and was scientific reporter for the journal Genome Biology. He has been a member of the Science Advisory Board since November 2002. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|