Peer-to-peer

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)