Peer review trickery?

Leading stem cell researchers are accusing some scientists of abusing the peer-review system, writing unreasonable or obstructive reviews and delaying the publication of high quality science. Image: Wikimedia commonsTwo researchers -- Robin Lovell-Badge, who spoke in a personal capacity, and Austin Smith, from the University of Cambridge -- linkurl:told the BBC;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490291.stm that sometimes scientists might write negative reviews of the work or request ad

Written byJef Akst

| 1 min read

Save for Later

Leading stem cell researchers are accusing some scientists of abusing the peer-review system, writing unreasonable or obstructive reviews and delaying the publication of high quality science.

Image: Wikimedia commons

Two researchers -- Robin Lovell-Badge, who spoke in a personal capacity, and Austin Smith, from the University of Cambridge -- linkurl:told the BBC;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490291.stm that sometimes scientists might write negative reviews of the work or request additional and unnecessary experiments in an effort to get their own papers, and those of their friends, published sooner. In an linkurl:open letter;http://eurostemcell.org/commentanalysis/peer-review to the editors of major scientific journals published last year, a group of 14 researchers, including Smith, argue that "papers that are scientifically flawed or comprise only modest technical increments often attract undue profile. At the same time publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected." To prevent this sort of corruption, they say, reviews, response to reviews, and associated editorial correspondence should be published as supplementary materials with the paper. Nature editor Philip Campbell denied that "there's some privileged clique" mistreating the review process, and Monica Bradford, executive editor of Science, told the BBC that they "have not been convinced to switch" to a system involving the open review of the quality of peer-review feedback. The EMBO Journal has, though: Starting January 1, 2009, all articles published in EMBO have a supplementary Review Process File (RPF), which includes the timeline of the review process and all relevant communication, such as referees' comments, decision letters and the responses from authors. On linkurl:their website,;http://www.nature.com/emboj/about/emboj_review_process.html EMBO claims that the experiment "appears to be successful," and they hope other journals will try similar initiatives.
**__Related stories:__***linkurl:Journal plays with peer review;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55394/
[3rd February 2009]*linkurl:Tackling peer review bias;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54893/
[28th July 2008]*linkurl:Is Peer Review Broken?;http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/
[February 2006]

Meet the Author

Jef Akst

Jef (an unusual nickname for Jennifer) got her master’s degree from Indiana University in April 2009 studying the mating behavior of seahorses. After four years of diving off the Gulf Coast of Tampa and performing behavioral experiments at the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga, she left research to pursue a career in science writing. As The Scientist's managing editor, Jef edited features and oversaw the production of the TS Digest and quarterly print magazine. In 2022, her feature on uterus transplantation earned first place in the trade category of the Awards for Excellence in Health Care Journalism. She is a member of the National Association of Science Writers.

View Full Profile