« Role of blogs in communicating scientific knowledge | Main | Will NIH's overhaul be cosmetic or curative? »

Bookmark in Connotea

What constitues a good report?

Nature Cell Biology continues its coverage of peer-review in its (free access) April Editorial 'Good review' (Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 371; 2008).
After stating the rationale for peer-review, the Editorial asks whether reviewing is essentially an altruistic activity, or whether there are significant rewards for doing it. "The biggest benefit of refereeing is probably to stay engaged with the scientific community in a sort of 'real-impact journal club'. We review less than a quarter of submitted manuscripts, with the aim of involving referees only for studies that seem worthy of publication. This saves time for authors, and referees know that the manuscripts they receive meet a minimum standard, so that refereeing should be an enriching experience. Nevertheless, the time commitment for refereeing is considerable and we are campaigning to ensure that this is taken into account in assessing research performance."
Although much has been said about alternatives and enhancements to 'single-blind' peer review, what actually constitutes a good referee report? The rest of the Editorial provides some answers, which are further explored at our author and peer-reviewers' website.
Nature Cell Biology's previous editorial (March 2008) is discussed here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 04, 2008
Categories: Quality and value | | Comments (2)

Comments

C´mon.
You gotta be kidding if Nat Cell Biology is a role model for peer reviewing.
The journal sometimes asks the authors to undertake many experiments even before sending a paper to review. Not strangely, papers in Nat Cell Biology, even small reports, end with a complete Rugby starting line up of Supplementary Figures (up to 20, I´ve seen).
I miss the old days where publications were just a mean to send a very interesting result, with which you will extend and discuss why it was important for your field.
The idea of Nat Cell Biology is undermining research efforts in the authors´ labs, which have to dedicate an enormous effort to provide many additional experiments that don´t even add much to the concept. This is not what science, and the peer review process, should be about.
I would recommend the editors of Nat Cell Biol a calm reading of the original paper on the structure of nucleic acids... and the way it was written. Something to learn.

Posted by: Regular scientist | April 14, 2008 06:38 PM

Thanks for your stimulating view, Regular Scientist. The NCB Editor has responded here:
http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/04/what_the_job_of_an_editor_is_a.html

I think this exchange is interesting, so have made a post of it rather than leaving it in the comments.
Thanks again.
Maxine.

Posted by: Maxine | April 23, 2008 11:54 AM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited. Remember this blog is for feedback and discussion of matters concerning scientific authorship or peer-review - not for drawing attention to your research.

If you want to know if a NPG journal would be interested in your research, you will need to contact the journal's editorial office, which can be done via the authors & referees website.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to avoid spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can send your comment by e-mail to 'referees at nature.com'.

please enter code

Search