Peer Review
From 16-18 September 2005, Adrian Mulligan attended the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in Chicago. He gathered details of presentations significant to your work. You can read key points from the conference in his article in Editors’ Update #13. Following this article we decided to focus on peer review in the Editors’ Forum as well.
Join the current discussion. Do you agree with answer A, B or C? And why?
For an optimum peer review, all Elsevier journals should:
A) Adopt double-blind review processes.
B) Not ask authors to recommend referees for their papers.
C) Offer more attractive incentives to referees.
Add your comment by clicking the ‘Write Comment’ link below. Please give your name and mail address. First time you contribute please also type your journal name in the comment box.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I have no problem with double-blind reviews in areas outside of my areas of expertise. Normally I scan all new submission. If the English is bad as is quite frequently the case with papers from several countries, I return the paper to the author(s) with instruction to have a person whose native language is English help the author(s) rewrite the paper in clear sentences before the review process begins.
Papers in areas where I have Expertise I review myself and also ask one outside reviewer to render a review. In most cases reviews are from different reviewers are complementary.
In areas where I have no Expertise I nomally ask for two reviews.
I ask authors to recommend potential reviewers in area where the subject matter is alien to me. I try to avoid asking people to review papers from authors from the same country.
There should not be any monitary rewards for reviewers. But it must be recognized that when one editor receives as many as 200 papers a year the process of review becomes a full time job for the editor. Consequently It is important that journals compile comprehensive lists of willing reviewers with specific areas of expertise that match the scopes of each journal. No reviewer is willing to review more than one or two papers papers per year. Therefore the list of reviewers must be long and must be comprehensive!
April 11th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
One contribution was removed as it was not a contribution to the current discussion.
Hans Kort
March 31st, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I cannot imagine how a single policy could be possible. Each Journal
should have its own policy on issues such as double-blind reviewing.
For what it is worth, I think reviewing should be blind or not as the
reviewer chooses; the author should be known (they will be, anyway, if most cases); that asking authors to recommend reviewers is a useful
practice — as long as the editor is free to ignore the recommendation
without prejudice; and that incentives should NOT be offered - the reward
being intellectual rather than financial, and we don’t want to encourage people to produce numerous reviews just to earn money, as the quality will go down.
March 24th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
A) in rather small fields of research this is impossible - only just starting authors will not be recognized by most but the youngest reviewers. Keep reviewers anonymous, if they want to.
B) I do not think this a good idea; editor can ignore the suggestions if (s)he thinks them not the best available, and it’s a way in which new names are suggested to editors (if not for the specific manuscript, then for others)
C) most attractive incentive to me personally is always the chance to read an interesting paper early on..not sure that much more is needed than the general ‘list of reviewers thanked’ published in one volume/year or so.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
A) Double-blind is good, but not a holy grail.
B) Why not? Authors are often MOST likely to know the best reviewers. I know I do for my papers. Besides, as editor, I can always reject their suggestions or add reviewers of my own choice.
C) Will this produce better reviews than we have now? And why?
January 20th, 2006 at 1:57 am
The executive editors do not always know proper reviewers on some topics. He or she is not an almighty god. Therefore, description about “B) Not ask authors to recommend referees for their papers” should be deleted.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
A) The anonymity of refrees must be assured, The anonymity of authors is difficult to attain, unless authors are warned in advance and agree to write in a way that hides their identities. In the end, double blind review is not practical, and many reviewers might consider it an affront to their integrity.
B) Editors should have the discretion of considering many possible reviewers, including those that authors may suggest.
C) What incentives? There should be none besides a mildly flattering and carefully worded letter of invitation, subtly reminding that peer review is a sacred duty of any publishing scientist…
January 19th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
I disagree strongly with proposition B. There are some very obscure areas of leukemia research, which no editor or editorial board can know well. Using non-specialist referees exposes the journal to publishing technically flawed papers. Sometimes the only way to find a specialist referee is to ask the author. It should not be supposed that author-recommended referees will necessarily be favorable towards the author. In my experience referees try to be objective at all times, and will disqualify themselves if they are too close to the author.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling
My views on the discussion points (A), (B) and (C):
(A) I think referees should be anonymous. The anonymity of the authors seems difficult to assure, as many will cite their previous work, and of limited benefit.
(B) Editors have the discretion to ignore self-serving suggestions of referees, but genuine suggestions can be helpful on occasion.
(C) Incentives for referees does seem like it might be the top of a slippery slope.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Advances in Applied Mathematics
As a general principle, it would not be wise to have a general principle (contradiction intended!) applying to every journal and every subject. One size does not fit all.
We do have “objective'’ parameters, such as those in journal citation reports, and for commercial journals, the number of downloads, paid subscriptions, whatever, to test if a journal is “doing its job'’. As long as this is the case, then the editors of each journal should decide what is an efficient and fair refereeing policy.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Crop Protection Journal
I do not agree with A or B A)referees are much more willing to review manuscripts if they have the names of the authors. Referees of course remain anonymous.
B) In my experience, the authors are the ones who know the current leading scientists in their field and it is most helpful to contact them because even if they cannot do the review, they will often direct you to others who can. I have not found any bias when I have used referees suggested by authors (I usually use one and find another independently).
I am ambivalent about C - I do think Elsevier could grant them access to Science Direct or Scopus in the year of the review.
January 18th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I disagree with item B (”not ask authors to recommend referees”). This presumes that authors will provide names of persons who will not give an objective review, which is not how I view authors, or consistent with my experiences. Authors of papers in specialty areas know who the leading persons are in their field of study and it makes sense to ask them to provide names of potential reviewers.
I also disagree with offering “incentives” to reviewers, beyond what is accepted as the primary incentive — mutually providing input on others work. That is a critical part of scholarship. Incentives sounds like paying them for reviews. That is not a direction we want to take the journal (in my opinion).