The Editorial by B. Alberts, B. Hanson, and K. L. Kelner ("Reviewing peer review," 4 July 2008, p. 15) and the Letter by M. Raff et al. ("Painful publishing," 4 July 2008, p. 36) raise issues on reviewing that are often the topic of conversation between scientists. Peer review can serve an important function by offering advice that improves a manuscript and/or its science. Too often, reviews are destructive and unproductive. Given the highly competitive nature of today's science there are issues to be considered by editors and editorial boards, perhaps by an online forum.
For example, reviewers tend to provide a negative review if (a) the manuscript presents a controversial topic, (b) the manuscript disagrees with the reviewer's own work or (c) the manuscript supports the reviewer's work but the reviewer seeks sole proprietorship.
Journals often reject a manuscript because the paper did not receive sufficient priority for publication and space is limited. Space may become less of a problem with the advent of online journals (as long as the journal has a high impact factor). The advent of impact factors has made space in some journals more limited overall, and has had a negative impact on the progress of science and careers.
Sometimes reviewers are wrong or misinterpret results. If challenged, the reviewer often stands firm and provides a harsher response.
Most manuscripts do not require more experimentation, even though future experiments are often called for. For most good science there's always a further experiment to do. In fact, one reviewer may disagree with the basis of experiments suggested by another reviewer. Many reviewers recommend that manuscripts be rejected or given a low priority rather than consider modifications suggested by other reviewers.
A noted scientist once proudly told me that he has never accepted a manuscript! In this instance the quality and utility of a review depends on whether a reviewer is considering the science or oneself! Hence, editors should be aware of the record of reviewers. Reviewers are asked to submit their reviews in two weeks. Why is it that the authors only learn the fate of a submitted manuscript after 3 to 4 months?
Science needs an open dialogue on these issues, perhaps sponsored by large societies such as the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) or the Association for Research in Vision and Opthamology (ARVO). Of course, even if meaningful recommendations on peer review are generated by such a dialogue, how would they be implemented? Perhaps market forces here would influence the journals.
Robert E. Cone
Department of Immunology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030-3105, USA.
E-Letters: ![[Read E-Letter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
