What? There?s news in peer review?

People linkurl:love to complain;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/ about peer review. (The system is too secretive, reviewers nix their competitors? papers, etc.) Still, very little ever changes in peer review, so the same complaints circulate for years with no noticeable effect. So when something potentially system-altering happens, it?s newsworthy. Last week, Nature performed such a service by introducing a linkurl:new feature;http://blogs.nature.com/nature/peerreview/trial/

By | June 15, 2006

People linkurl:love to complain;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/ about peer review. (The system is too secretive, reviewers nix their competitors? papers, etc.) Still, very little ever changes in peer review, so the same complaints circulate for years with no noticeable effect. So when something potentially system-altering happens, it?s newsworthy. Last week, Nature performed such a service by introducing a linkurl:new feature;http://blogs.nature.com/nature/peerreview/trial/ that lets readers peer review submissions to the journal at the same time the journal sends the paper to ?official? peer reviewers. The feature will continue for three months, to allow the journal to measure the value of this type of open system. Scientists who comment on the paper must identify themselves, and the journal is careful to insist that the papers are not ?in press? or endorsed by the journal. The latter point likely attempts to address criticisms that open publishing would enable any group to associate itself with Science or Nature just by sending in a paper for open review, since everyone would see the paper on the journal?s Web site. The insistence that Web reviewers sign their reviews is also interesting, given that Bernd Pulverer, editor of Nature Cell Biology, said in our February cover story on peer review that biology is too competitive to foster a system of signed reviews. ?I would find it unlikely that a junior person would write a terse, critical review for a Nobel prize-winning author,? he said. It?s unclear how much weight the journal will give to comments posted from Web users. The Nature site says editors ?may take into account? the comments when making their decision. Which means that commentators will remain in the dark as to whether editors actually listened to what they had to say, or simply added this feature to demonstrate its progressive attitude. I guess that, when it comes to peer review, there are limits to how open Nature is willing to be.
Advertisement
Advertisement
EMD Millipore
EMD Millipore

Popular Now

  1. The Mycobiome
    Features The Mycobiome

    The largely overlooked resident fungal community plays a critical role in human health and disease.

  2. Antibody Alternatives
    Features Antibody Alternatives

    Nucleic acid aptamers and protein scaffolds could change the way researchers study biological processes and treat disease.

  3. Holding Their Ground
    Features Holding Their Ground

    To protect the global food supply, scientists want to understand—and enhance—plants’ natural resistance to pathogens.

  4. Circadian Clock and Aging
    Daily News Circadian Clock and Aging

    Whether a critical circadian clock gene is deleted before or after birth impacts the observed aging-related effects in mice.

Advertisement
Lexogen
Lexogen
Advertisement
Life Technologies