Peer-to-peer

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. But it isn't always clear exactly what Nature Physics expects of its referees. The journal explains in its November Editorial (5, 775; 2009). "Whatever you think about a paper, it is vital to explain to us exactly why you think it. Your colleagues among the other reviewers may disagree with your assessment, and we do not base our decisions on a show of hands. Hence detailed critiques carry more weight in informing our decisions than terse affirmations one way or the other (in most cases we would disregard the latter, regardless of who supplied it). A further point to consider is whether the work presented in a paper is similar to what has been done before — in such a case, please explain exactly what has been done previously and indicate where it was published." The Editorial outlines the journal's peer-review process, what the editors look for in a review, how to write the review, and how the editors make their decisions. "Peer review is essential for maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. It's well worth the effort. And we thank all of you who make it."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 06, 2009
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)

We received a question at the Nature Network 'Ask the Editor' forum which I thought readers of this blog might find useful.

Q: I once reviewed several manuscripts for a good journal, but it is on behalf of my Ph.D boss. Now, I am a postdoc and wonder how to become a reviewer? Thanks for any suggestions.

A. At Nature, we ask our peer-reviewers to identify anyone who helps them with their review. (The reviewers promise to keep the ms confidential, in advance of being sent it, and undertake to ensure that anyone they show it to also keeps it confidential). Therefore, we often discover (and regularly use) good new reviewers by this method. Many senior reviewers ask junior colleagues to review a ms as part of their mentoring, and are very good at assigning credit to these junior colleagues.
I suggest that if you help your boss or another colleague with his or her reviews in future, you ask that person to name you as a collaborator when he/she sends the journal the review, so your name gets known.
If you have been a co-author on your boss’s papers, you could contact the journal that published the work and offer to review (providing the information that you’ve published in that journal).
I think that as you publish in your own right, journal editors will get to know of you and start to ask you to review for them.
If you meet any journal editors at conferences you attend, you could let them know that you’d be interested in peer-reviewing for their journal.
Good luck!

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 07, 2009
Categories: Journals, Peer Review Feedback | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via press release, The EMBO Journal will be publishing online author and referee comments from this year (2009). “The EMBO Journal has been our flagship publication for 27 years, sharing knowledge broadly within the molecular life sciences community,” said Hermann Bujard, director of EMBO (European Molecular Biology Organisation). “We are excited by the editorial changes that will make publication of research findings more transparent, complete and visible.”
By making the evaluation of manuscripts visible to everyone, The EMBO Journal aims to encourage constructive referee and author argumentation. Younger scientists will gain valuable insight into how to publish their research findings as well as how to deal with criticism.
"The EMBO Journal has an efficient and reasonable editorial process,” writes Executive Editor Pernille Rørth in an advanced online publication of the editorial in the first issue for 2009 (EMBO J. 28 , published online 4 December 2008). “A transparent editorial process will help demystify decisions.”
Beginning with manuscripts submitted in 2009, a supplementary process file will be included with the online publication of papers. This file will show all dates relevant to manuscript processing and communications between the author, editors, referees and comments to the decision letter. Readers will learn about why referees find the paper interesting, any gaps they may have identified in the initial research findings, and how the gaps were resolved in revision. Referee identities will be anonymous and confidential comments between the referee and editors will remain so. Authors will have the option to decline publication of the editorial process when they submit manuscripts, but are encouraged to participate.
Instructions for authors are available here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 05, 2009
Categories: Journals, Systems | Permalink | Comments (1)

Over the past four years, the editors of Nature Chemical Biology have enjoyed getting to know chemical biologists from around the world and hearing about their diverse research. In the journal's December Editorial (Nat. Chem. Bio. 4, 715; 2008), the editors describe how they select papers. From the Editorial:

The review process at Nature Chemical Biology includes two steps: editorial assessment and external peer review. We first read and discuss each manuscript in light of our editorial criteria and determine whether the manuscript should be sent for external peer review. For manuscripts that are not initially selected for external review, we contact the authors to decline the paper, and in some cases we encourage resubmission of a revised manuscript. In the latter case, we send the authors a decision letter that contains a web link for submitting a revised paper and encourage them to discuss the study further with the editor. Papers that are selected for external peer review are sent to a panel of scientific referees covering appropriate chemical and biological expertise, who are asked to assess the technical merits and scientific advance of the paper. After review, the editors discuss the manuscript in the context of the referee reports and make a decision to accept or decline the work, or to request a revised manuscript. Most published manuscripts have undergone more than one round of review by the same referees to ensure that all technical concerns have been addressed.
How do we determine which manuscripts are sent for external review? Our first consideration is whether the submitted manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. In principle, chemical biology papers should have a balance of chemical and biological components. However, for most current manuscripts the major advance is focused in one discipline. As a result we consider papers across this spectrum, ranging from fundamental chemical studies that are applied to understanding biological systems to major biological advances that were enabled by chemical approaches. Second, we consider whether the paper reports significant conceptual or methodological advances that are likely to open up new avenues of research in the field. In assessing a manuscript's novelty, we rely on our editorial expertise and familiarity with the field's criteria, but we also closely examine the published literature to provide context for the reported discoveries. Finally, because the journal's audience includes both chemists and biologists, we favor papers that are likely to appeal not only to specialists but also to our broad readership.

The full Editorial is here.
Peer-review policies of the Nature journals.
More about peer-review at the Nature journals.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 20, 2008
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (2)

From Nature 454, 928; 21 August 2008:
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) plans to publish in peer-reviewed journals much of the scientific evidence it used to pin the 2001 anthrax attacks on microbiologist Bruce Ivins.
Ivins's suicide on 29 July means that the government's case against him will never be heard in court. The trickle of circumstantial evidence released in an investigation that had previously fingered the wrong man has lawmakers, scientists and others clamouring for more information.
In response, the FBI invited scientists and journal editors to a briefing in Washington DC on 18 August to discuss the science of the case and investigators' conclusion that a single man carried out the multiple, deadly mailings of anthrax spores. But FBI officials admit that some mysteries of the case may never be resolved. "I don't think we're ever going to put the suspicions to bed," said Vahid Majidi, assistant director of the division of weapons of mass destruction at the FBI. "There's always going to be a spore on a grassy knoll."
In lieu of expert witnesses and cross-examinations, the FBI plans to offer the evidence for peer review and will keep much of the data quiet until they are published. FBI laboratory director Chris Hassell anticipates a dozen or so papers related to the case, in addition to those that have already been published. However, Hassell says, some details of the investigation will remain confidential, so that potential bioterrorists won't know exactly what they're up against. "It's just what we have to do for national security," he says.
"Given that Ivins cannot stand trial, putting the data through the rigorous process of scientific review may be the best available alternative," says Alan Pearson, director of the biological and chemical weapons control programme at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC.

Continue reading "Science of anthrax case will be submitted to peer-review" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 21, 2008
Categories: Ethics, Journals, Policy and Public | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a discussion at Nature Network about the desirability, or otherwise, of developing a set of metrics to measure individual value, Roberto Cerbino suggests that an interesting factor for an experiment is peer-reviewing activity. Some journals already publish at the end of the year the list of names of reviewers. Perhaps, he writes, they could add some quantitative factor such as the number of papers reviewed or an evaluation index of the reviewer’s work? This would be a small but useful step to assess the contributions of individuals to their fields of activity.
Raf Aerts disagrees, cautions that researchers could accept as many review requests as possible to increase their r-factor, including manuscripts that are not really in their field of expertise.
Thomas Lemberger, EMBO editor of Molecular Systems Biology, on the other hand, points out that a simple ranking of referees could be based on combining frequency of review with speed: referees who review frequently and fast (which he calls the FF-metric) for a given journal are likely to be good referees, at least within the field covered by the journal.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 30, 2008
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)

This month's (March 2008) free-access Editorial in Nature Cell Biology (10, 247; 2008) addresses the journal's peer-review process: specifically, what the journal does to ensure that its selection process is fair.
From the Editorial:
"A legitimate question for editors at Nature Cell Biology is whether we are considering alternatives to the status quo of anonymous peer review, in particular, why we do not use a 'double blind' process (which received significant endorsement in a recent survey of the Publishing Research Consortium). The existing process, based on a thorough pre-selection by five full-time editors and subsequent external peer review by carefully selected referees, works well — individual stories of woe notwithstanding."
The editorial goes on to outline how changes to the system, when being considered, must show a demonstrable improvement to the process. Several of the commonly proposed alternatives to the 'single blind' system are discussed in this light (see here for a recent popular debate on the topic at this blog). The Editorial concludes with a summary of the process as currently run by the Nature Cell Biology editors, together with the journal's planned enhancments.
The editors welcome your views on the Editorial as comments to this post.
Further information about the Nature journals' peer-review policies are available at the authors' and reviewers' website.
Connotea tags for peer-review.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 06, 2008
Categories: Journals, Systems | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is quite a bit of advice and debate about peer review on various parts of nature.com at the moment, so I thought I'd round it up in this one post.
At The Sceptical Chymist blog, Catherine Goodman, an editor at Nature Chemical Biology, provides some thoughts on how to referee a paper, clarifying the journal's procedures and providing some tips.
Nature Medicine's August issue's Editorial set out what the journal seeks in its reviewers, asking readers how the journal can retain the best in the face of the plethora of requests to review from an increasing number of publications.
Over at Nature Network, there is a forum on peer-review in the Ask The Editor group, which addresses questions such as training of peer-reviewers and how Nature journal editors control the quality of the reviewing process.
In another Network Group, Nature Nanotechnology: Asia-Pacific and Beyond, journal editor Ai-Lin Chun asks "Do you know how to referee a paper?" and provides some answers to her readers. And the topic comes up again in the Publishing in the New Millennium forum, in the debate about the current state of science publishing.
As well as these blogs, forums and groups, the Nature Publishing Group Author and Reviewers' website has a page of peer-review information, including how to write a review for a Nature journal, what makes a good review, our peer-review policies, and why we operate the system of peer review that we do. And for a real, meaty discussion of how the Internet is affecting or may affect the publication process, you can read Nature's peer-review debate (22 articles) published in 2006.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2007
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)

The August editorial in Nature Medicine (13, 887; 2007), 'Why review?', sets out what the journal seeks in its reviewers, given that peer-review underpins the quality of a journal. It goes on to ask readers how the journal can retain the best in the face of the plethora of requests to review from an increasing number of publications.

From the editorial: "Reviewing manuscripts is a fundamental part of the scientific world. Unlike in other professions, however, scientists give their advice for free. If we were to equate reviewers' advice with that of lawyers, journals could never afford the cost. So what motivates reviewers to spend large portions of their precious time analyzing the merits of other people's work?
At the heart of the process, reviewers must have a passion for their area of research and the desire to help advance their field. Propagating a wrong idea by publishing a half-baked paper in a high-profile journal can set a field back and waste both time and resources."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 10, 2007
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)

Research journal gives undergrads chance to shine

The article at the link above, in the McGill Reporter, highlights the McGill Science Undergraduate Research Journal, "a unique publication that offers undergraduate science students a rare opportunity to participate in the peer-review process, get their first publication credit and, in the end, improve their science. "

The article describes how the journal has just been relaunched, how the peer-review system works, and how it is funded and staffed.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 27, 2007
Categories: Journals, Quality and value | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, 01 March 2007
ISLAMABAD (Associated Press of Pakistan, APP): The Chairman of the Higher Education Commission, Dr Atta-ur-Rahman, said on Thursday that co-editors of journals should be selected from industrially advanced countries to attract quality papers from potential researchers. Active and eminent editorial boards are essential for the research journals being printed in the country, he said while addressing a meeting of the Editors of HEC recognized journals, organized here by the Quality Assurance Division of HEC.

He said the editorial board of every research journal should be broad-based, and selection of editorial members be made by searching in high quality journals to attract prestigious editorial board members. The Chairman was of the view that database of OIC Standing Committee on Scientific and Technological Cooperation (COMSTECH), which is excellent in current content information, should be used for the purpose as it is available to all the Islamic countries.

Dr Sohail Naqvi, Executive Director HEC asked the editors to launch their own websites for electronic publications. For the purpose, management software for online paper submission and peer review could be provided by HEC, while the editors will be encouraged to communicate through electronic media. He further asked the editors that ethical issues of plagiarism in their journals should be avoided through an undertaking. The editors should come forward with seminars and workshops to be organized at their universities for improvement of the journals, for which HEC would provide the funds, he added.

More then 70 editors of HEC-recognized journals from universities and organizations all over Pakistan attended the meeting. Prof Dr Shamshad Akbar of Government College University, Lahore, in his presentation shared the main features of high-quality national and international journals and their requirements. Prof Waqaruddin Ahmad of HEJ Karachi also made a presentation on “Journal of Chemical Society of Pakistan” published by HEJ, and explained in detail the impact factor system of the Institute of Scientific Information. The participants of the meeting recommended that the HEC should establish operating standards and procedures for research journals.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 02, 2007
Categories: Journals | Permalink | Comments (0)