E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Donald Kennedy Confidential Review--or Not? Science 2008; 319: 1009 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Independence of Peer Reviews

Raphael C.-W. Phan   (19 June 2008)

What Level of Confidentiality Must Be Maintained?

Michael L. Levitan   (19 June 2008)

Confidential vs. Open Peer Review

Colin C. Anderson   (3 June 2008)

Independence of Peer Reviews 19 June 2008
Raphael C.-W. Phan Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Independence of Peer Reviews	The Editorial by D. Kennedy "Confidential review—or not?" (22 February 2008, p. 1009) is intriguing in light of the evolution of scientific publishing. I view the independence of peer reviews through two perspectives, (i) reviews should be unbiased and fair with respect to any individual author, and (ii) the review process should be free from any undue influence by external agencies. It is analogous to the independence of the judicial system from other parts of the government, which has been crucial for keeping public confidence in their system of justice. In fact, it is due to this independence that the public still has confidence in judicial systems. The same environment needs to be preserved in science for the public to remain confident about scientific publishing. Raphael C.-W. Phan Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. References 1. S. Bachrach et al., Nature 281, 1459 (1998). 2. A. M. Edelson, Science 280, 359 (1998). 3. A. M. Odlyzko, Notices Am. Math. Soc. 42, 49 (1995). 4. A. Lawler, Science 319, 1025 (2008).
What Level of Confidentiality Must Be Maintained? 19 June 2008
Michael L. Levitan, Professor Villanova University Respond to this E-Letter: Re: What Level of Confidentiality Must Be Maintained?	Although I agree that confidentiality for peer review journals should be maintained to the best of the publisher's ability (Editorial, "Confidential review—or not?", 22 February 2008, p. 1009) the requirement in our legal system to produce a vigorous defense should trump this level of confidentiality. Only those areas specifically designated in the legal code, such as doctor-patient privilege, attorney-client privilege, etc., should be recognized as levels of confidentiality that must be maintained. There is no question that conflict may arise when articles for submission may be criticized. This may cause embarrassment for both reviewers and authors if this information should be made public. Nevertheless, reviewers should be circumspect in their criticisms, recognizing that the level of confidentiality assumed may, at some point, be compromised. Michael L. Levitan Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085, USA.
Confidential vs. Open Peer Review 3 June 2008
Colin C. Anderson, scientist University of Alberta Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Confidential vs. Open Peer Review	In response to the statement by Pfizer that "[t]he public has no interest in protecting the editorial process of a scientific journal…", D. Kennedy writes, "Doesn’t the public want access to credible biomedical science?"(Editorial, "Confidential review—or not?", 22 February 2008, p. 1009). What Kennedy fails to grasp in his response, is that there exists a real distrust of science within a large segment of the population. If the public were more aware of how scientific knowledge dissemination is ruled by such back room (anonymous) decision-makers, a closed process where unnamed competitors judge one's work, their distrust of science would be even greater than it is currently. They would be correct in being dismayed that the publishing of science, a field that is seen as a search for truth, is run in a way that is completely counter to a search for truth, with no open discussion. It is unfortunate that the Editor [Emeritus] of one of the few journals that has allowed (at least in the past) reviewers to identify themselves in their reviews to the authors would now advocate secrecy. While many reviewers may fear non-anonymous reviewing, if editors could encourage rather than hinder a more open peer review process it would most certainly increase the public trust in science. Most importantly, Kennedy provides no evidence to indicate that anonymous peer review generates "quality of the product" more so than an open peer review system. The accountability that open peer review would generate is in everyone's best interest, including the quality of the science that makes it to press. Hopefully, editors will help take us out of these "dark ages" of secrecy in scientific publishing. An informed public will demand it, and that time cannot arrive too soon. Colin C. Anderson University of Alberta, Edmonton, AL T6G 2N8, Canada.