E-Letter responses to:

letters: Matthew A. Metz Rewarding Reviewers Science 2008; 319: 1335c [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Include Reviewing Into the Single Researcher Impact Factor

Gianluca Castelnuovo   (9 May 2008)

Reviewers Deserve It

Jochen F. Staiger   (8 May 2008)

Include Reviewing Into the Single Researcher Impact Factor 9 May 2008
Gianluca Castelnuovo, Professor of Psychology and Researcher in Clinical Psychology Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, Psychology Research Laboratory, 28824, Italy Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Include Reviewing Into the Single Researcher Impact Factor	As a member of two editorial boards and having reviewed many manuscripts over the years, I resonate with the Letters by W. F. Perrin, R. S. Zucker ("In search of peer reviewers, 4 January 2008, p. 32), M. A. Metz and G. Marchionini ("Rewarding reviewers," 7 March 2008, p. 1335) and I propose to better consider the peer reviewer responsibilities, merits and scientific contributions. Writing and finalizing an article is a very complex process where reviewers can usually offer a valid and crucial scientific contribution that can make an article ready to be published and appreciated in the scientific community. In order to make peer-reviewers more compliant in their fundamental role for the improvement of science, according to Metz's solutions (such as "count of average manuscript reviews per year on applicant CVs", p. 1335) and to the up-to-date scientific debate about how to find a better index than impact factor (IF) to measure the single scientist's impact factor (1, 2), one possible solution is to create a new index, such as the Single Researcher Impact Factor (SRIF) that can take into account number and quality of the traditional publications and of the other activities usually associated with being a researcher, such as reviewing manuscripts. Some experimental versions of this new index are under evaluation in Economics (3), Psychology (4) and Medicine (5, 6). By replacing the journal-centered IF with a single researcher-centered IF, that can include reviewing activity too, the evaluation of individual scientific impact in the community will be more accurate and could motivate researchers, overall young ones, in reviewing without frustration. Gianluca Castelnuovo Istituto Auxologico Italiano IRCCS, Psychology Research Laboratory, 28824, Italy. References 1. T. Gracza, I. Somoskovi, Orv. Hetil., 148 (18), 849 (2007). 2. G. Castelnuovo, Are there good alternatives for the “Impact Factor” algorithm? Response to H. Brown, How impact factors changed medical publishing—and science, BMJ, 2007; http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/334/7593/561#162628. 3. P. Tucci, S. Fontani, S. Ferrini, L’R-factor: un nuovo modo di valutare la ricerca scientifica, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica, 527, 1 (2008). 4. E. Molinari, G. Castelnuovo, in Psicologia Clinica: Dialoghi e Confronti, E. Molinari, A. Labella Eds. (Springer, 2007), pp. 203-215. 5. A. B. Adams, D. Simonson, Respiratory Care 49 (3), 276 (2004). 6. P. M. Ironside, J. Gerontol. Nurs., 33 (6), 3 (2007).
Reviewers Deserve It 8 May 2008
Jochen F. Staiger, Professor of Cell Biology University of Freiburg, 79085 Freiburg, Germany Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Reviewers Deserve It	The Letter by M. A. Metz ("Rewarding reviewers," 7 March 2008, p. 1335) speaks to my heart! Since the advent of electronic submissions and reviewing of manuscripts, very many journals do not inform the reviewers about the outcome of their efforts, and we have to find out for ourselves by logging in at Web sites. Improvements like those suggested here will certainly increase the willingness and effort taken by reviewers to serve the scientific community. Jochen F. Staiger, Department of Cell Biology, University of Freiburg, 79085 Freiburg, Germany.