Solutions for the Peer Review Problem
31/10/11 14:02 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Thu, 11/24/2011 - 14:02.
With over a million scientific publications appearing annually from thousands of scientific journals world-wide, it is hard to envision that "a handful of journals (that) are considered the "gatekeepers of success in science." Many of the least informative and short reviews that I have received over the last 25 years have been from so called "premier" journals.
I remember receiving a rejection from the journal Cell back in 1991 about a submitted manuscript produced in collaboration with Jonathan Cooper's laboratory in which we demonstrated that the 42 kDa protein that undergoes enhanced tyrosine phosphorylation in growth factor-treated mammalian cells and in frog oocytes undergoing meiotic maturation were enzymatically and immunologically similar and corresponded to a MAP kinase. We also provided the first full length amino acid sequence in any species of what later became to be called ERK2. The primary basis of the rejection from Cell was that MAP kinases had not been shown to be important for anything. Interestingly, about 4 months later, Cell published a manuscript from Melanie Cobb's laboratory that featured amino acid sequences for ERK2 and ERK3 as well as an incomplete sequence for ERK1 with no functional data. Over 20,000 scientific papers have been published about ERK1 and ERK2 since.
I am sure that most established and successful researchers have endured similar experiences many times in their careers. The present peer-review system is highly flawed and places an immense burden on the scientific community. If the scientific content of a scientific manuscript was the true motivating criteria for publication, then not only should the reviewers be anonymous to the authors, but so should the authors of the manuscript be blinded to the reviewers. In any event, manuscripts are often reviewed by those that do not have the time nor specialized knowledge to properly provide a critique. The concept that a scientific paper should be pre-reviewed by a full-time journal editor is even more disturbing. Individuals in these positions often have much less actual research experience and are probably less informed about advancements in specialized fields. As it stands now, peer-review cannot easily identify fraudulent data. It can flag sloppy methodology and mis- or over-interpretation of results.
In the end, some form of peer-review prior to publication is highly advisable. In particular to avoid ultimate embarrassment to the authors and the journal in which the work appears. However, the most effective peer-review should be post-publication when other experts in the field are able to critique the work in a constructive fashion. Few journals, PLOS being an exception, provide such an opportunity for direct feedback from the scientific community.
Link to the original blog post.
With over a million scientific publications appearing annually from thousands of scientific journals world-wide, it is hard to envision that "a handful of journals (that) are considered the "gatekeepers of success in science." Many of the least informative and short reviews that I have received over the last 25 years have been from so called "premier" journals.
I remember receiving a rejection from the journal Cell back in 1991 about a submitted manuscript produced in collaboration with Jonathan Cooper's laboratory in which we demonstrated that the 42 kDa protein that undergoes enhanced tyrosine phosphorylation in growth factor-treated mammalian cells and in frog oocytes undergoing meiotic maturation were enzymatically and immunologically similar and corresponded to a MAP kinase. We also provided the first full length amino acid sequence in any species of what later became to be called ERK2. The primary basis of the rejection from Cell was that MAP kinases had not been shown to be important for anything. Interestingly, about 4 months later, Cell published a manuscript from Melanie Cobb's laboratory that featured amino acid sequences for ERK2 and ERK3 as well as an incomplete sequence for ERK1 with no functional data. Over 20,000 scientific papers have been published about ERK1 and ERK2 since.
I am sure that most established and successful researchers have endured similar experiences many times in their careers. The present peer-review system is highly flawed and places an immense burden on the scientific community. If the scientific content of a scientific manuscript was the true motivating criteria for publication, then not only should the reviewers be anonymous to the authors, but so should the authors of the manuscript be blinded to the reviewers. In any event, manuscripts are often reviewed by those that do not have the time nor specialized knowledge to properly provide a critique. The concept that a scientific paper should be pre-reviewed by a full-time journal editor is even more disturbing. Individuals in these positions often have much less actual research experience and are probably less informed about advancements in specialized fields. As it stands now, peer-review cannot easily identify fraudulent data. It can flag sloppy methodology and mis- or over-interpretation of results.
In the end, some form of peer-review prior to publication is highly advisable. In particular to avoid ultimate embarrassment to the authors and the journal in which the work appears. However, the most effective peer-review should be post-publication when other experts in the field are able to critique the work in a constructive fashion. Few journals, PLOS being an exception, provide such an opportunity for direct feedback from the scientific community.
Link to the original blog post.