The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Journal plays with peer review
Posted by Alison McCook
[Entry posted at 3rd February 2009 04:07 PM GMT]
Ever wondered it would be like to tell a journal "nah, I don't think I want reviewers to re-review my manuscript"?
Well, now you can -- in a new experimental policy, the Journal of Biology is giving authors the option of asking the journal to publish their revised paper without the okay of reviewers. In other words, once they have revised the manuscript, they can bypass a second review, a process that typically tacks on extra time.
"Of course journals must do their best to ensure that the research they publish is valid, but the primary function of a journal editor is to promote the dissemination of research results, not to obstruct it," said Miranda Robertson, editor of the Journal of Biology, in a statement. "I hope this experiment will show that referees, authors and journals can work together to accelerate the publication of important research." Robertson is a former biology editor at Nature. According to Robertson's editorial in the recent issue of the journal, the editorial board voted in favor of the change by a margin of "about four to one." She also acknowledged the risks associated with the decision: Namely, that some reviewers might decline to review papers if they suspect their comments will be disregarded (in fact, one out of five editorial board members conceded they would likely refuse to review papers they could not re-review). "On the other hand, if a substantial number of authors opted out of re-review, this would release more time for the remaining 80%," Robertson noted. The Journal of Biology is an open access journal, meaning all published articles are immediately made freely available online. BMC, currently owned by Springer, used to be a sister company to The Scientist. Tell us: Does this new peer review policy make the journal more attractive to you? Image courtesy of Journal of Biology Related stories: [February 2006] [10th October 2008] [31st July 2007] |
Rate this article
An unanswerable question
by Ruth Rosin
[Comment posted 2009-02-05 18:46:06]
[Comment posted 2009-02-05 18:46:06]
The question is whether science would be damaged more by the delayed publication of a fully valid and very important new scientific discovery, or by the overly-rushed publication of an unwarranted scientific conclusion.
I do not believe it is even possible to provide an intelligent answer to this question, because each individual case must be judged on its own merit, based on the wisdom of hind-sight!
Personally, I may be biased here, because I have been dealing for very many years with what I consider the worst goof in the history of the Behavioral Science, if not of all science in general. I refer to the overly-fast acceptance of the sensational honeybee "dance language" (DL)hypothesis, (first announced by K. v. Frisch in a scientific journal, in 1946, as presumably already fully properly scientifically confirmed), and its quick elevation to the status of a revered ruling paradigm.
This DL does not exist at all, but, in spite of attempts to close the lid on it (begun by Wenner & his team in 1967), the main outcome so far has been a "dance language" controversy ongoing for over 40 years, that had long become the most important reflection of a far more basic controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science, (i.e. the controversy over the very existence of genetically predetermined traits, known as "instincts" in Behavior), with DL opponents for the most part being denied the right to be heard, and a resulting, very dangerous, gradual erosion of the very foundation of the whole field of Behavioral Science.
When Wenner stated many years ago that he was not sure he would live to see victory, I thought he was over-reacting. But, as the years go by, I begin to suspect that his pessimism might turn out to have been justified. Naturally, I am more than furious, though never blinded by my fury.
Can the new policy adopted by the Journal of Biology, cause another such major disaster?
Who knows?
I do not believe it is even possible to provide an intelligent answer to this question, because each individual case must be judged on its own merit, based on the wisdom of hind-sight!
Personally, I may be biased here, because I have been dealing for very many years with what I consider the worst goof in the history of the Behavioral Science, if not of all science in general. I refer to the overly-fast acceptance of the sensational honeybee "dance language" (DL)hypothesis, (first announced by K. v. Frisch in a scientific journal, in 1946, as presumably already fully properly scientifically confirmed), and its quick elevation to the status of a revered ruling paradigm.
This DL does not exist at all, but, in spite of attempts to close the lid on it (begun by Wenner & his team in 1967), the main outcome so far has been a "dance language" controversy ongoing for over 40 years, that had long become the most important reflection of a far more basic controversy over the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science, (i.e. the controversy over the very existence of genetically predetermined traits, known as "instincts" in Behavior), with DL opponents for the most part being denied the right to be heard, and a resulting, very dangerous, gradual erosion of the very foundation of the whole field of Behavioral Science.
When Wenner stated many years ago that he was not sure he would live to see victory, I thought he was over-reacting. But, as the years go by, I begin to suspect that his pessimism might turn out to have been justified. Naturally, I am more than furious, though never blinded by my fury.
Can the new policy adopted by the Journal of Biology, cause another such major disaster?
Who knows?
New category of feedback
by Stephen Duplantier
[Comment posted 2009-02-05 07:13:46]
[Comment posted 2009-02-05 07:13:46]
Peer-review is another name for negative feedback--i.e. error correction or deviation damping. A better approach is to use the suggestion of Magoroh Maruyama and try some positive feedback, or deviation-amplification. The idea is not to spread error or reward mistakes, but in the larger view, to allow science and the realm of ideas to take freer paths toward evolvability and paradigm changes. Peer-review is a brake on innovation.
Maybe "semi-peer reviewed" is a useful middle of the road approach to allow more rapid idea-development, yet have a modicium of restraint.
Maybe "semi-peer reviewed" is a useful middle of the road approach to allow more rapid idea-development, yet have a modicium of restraint.
No re-review?
by David Ransohoff
[Comment posted 2009-02-04 12:21:27]
[Comment posted 2009-02-04 12:21:27]
What is the purpose of this strategy?
Is "speed of publication" the current rate-limiting step in the progress of scientific knowledge?
Is "speed of publication" the current rate-limiting step in the progress of scientific knowledge?
Comment on this blog