|
Many biomedical journals offer fast-track peer reviews of scientific articles. Woo-Suk Huang's now-
discredited 2005 Science paper about human cloning was accepted 58 days after submission, faster than
the journal's 81-day average. Still, it remains unclear what effect, if any, this expedited evaluation has on
review quality, rejection rates, or scientific publishing overall.
Some journals define fast-tracking solely as fast reviewing, while others say the term also describes fast publication.
The Lancet, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Journal of Medical Internet Research guarantee publication of
successful manuscripts within four weeks of receipt. Other journals, such as The Journal of Interferon & Cytokine
Research, guarantee reviews in two weeks but no further speed-up in publication.
Journals also vary in the number of fast-tracked articles they print per year. The Lancet averages between 35
and 40, according to Stuart Spencer, executive director of its fast-track team. Nature publishes 10 to 20, while
BMJ publishes about 10, their editors say. "Some [editors] use fast track for a lot of stuff, and some rarely use it,"
says Annette Flanagin of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which is coordinating this year's
international congress.
The common reason articles are chosen for fast-tracking seems to be their perceived importance to editors,
to the scientific community, or to patients. At BMJ, the service is offered only "for papers of exceptional clinical
importance," or "where there is a public policy reason for urgent publication," according to editor Trish Groves.
Editors elsewhere say they sometimes fast-track articles to scoop competitor journals or to publish before the
same or similar work is presented at important conferences.
But how do quicker reviews influence the peer review process? Four major journals say they accept equal
percentages of fast-track and normal-speed articles. Science, Nature, and BMJ report publishing 7% of both types,
while The Lancet publishes about 5% for both.
One study, headed by William Ghali of the University of Calgary in Alberta, found that 42 general internists
rated the methodologic quality of 12 fast-tracked articles from the New England Journal of Medicine and
The Lancet to be about the same as that of 12 similar articles reviewed at normal speed at the same journals.
Moreover, both types of articles were cited in subsequent publications at about the same rates. However,
internists rated fast-track articles as slightly more important to clinical practice, to the advancement of knowledge,
and to other outcomes than were other articles rated from those same journals. The advantage was
small but statistically significant.
Beyond this study, editors say they have never seen formal evidence about the effects of fast-tracking, even
for basic questions such as how many biomedical journals offer it. "Studies on this topic have either not been
done or not been published, or I haven't seen them," says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA and founder
of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.
But where science is silent, opinion and anecdote abound. Most editors The Scientist queried said they believe
the quality of their own journal's fast-track peer reviewing and ordinary reviewing is equivalent, because they
demand the same standards for both. "I look at all of our reviews," says Brooks Hanson, deputy editor of Science,
"and I really don't see" any difference in quality. Indeed, Science dedicated only 48 hours to a review of a 1995
paper on an exotic state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate. The work eventually earned its author the
Nobel Prize, "so I think it was reviewed pretty well," Hanson notes.
Ghali says experienced academics spend about two hours performing each review, no matter how soon it's
due. When an editor gives him a month to review an article, "I carry it around in my briefcase for about three and
a half weeks, and then just as it's coming up to the deadline of when it's due, I deal with it right there."
Correction (posted February 9): When originally posted, this article reported that the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication happens every year. The Congress takes place every four years.
The Scientist regrets this error.
|
