[Open-access] [open-science] Fast-forward peer review for a fee

Tue Mar 31 15:17:20 UTC 2015

Amy,

Many thanks for communicating with us.

So far as I am concerned, the objectivity of Scientific Reports is fatally
compromised by this initiative. Once one class of authors is able to pay
for the privilege of getting more favourable treatment in peer-review, this
at the very least invites the conclusion that that it will lead to other
forms of pay-for-favour. It's against everything that a credible scholarly
publisher should stand for. I urge you to end this experiment immediately,
before the damage to your reputation becomes irreparable.

-- Mike.

On 31 March 2015 at 16:09, Bourke, Amy <Amy.Bourke at palgrave.com> wrote:

>  Dear Rayna,
>
>
>
> *Scientific Reports* is undertaking a small pilot study (approx. 40
> manuscripts over a few weeks) offering an opt-in, pay-for fast-track peer
> review.  We want to see if a fast track option is something authors
> actually want.   In a 2014 survey of over 30,000 NPG researchers, authors
> told us that they want us to innovate when it comes to peer review: 70%
> were frustrated with the time peer-review takes, 77% thought traditional
> peer review could be made more efficient and 67% thought publishers should
> experiment with alternative peer-review methods.
>
>
>
> The company who we will be working with, Rubriq, do pay their reviewers
> who provide fast track peer review, but the final decision on whether to
> accept will be made by Scientific Report’s in-house editors. If a situation
> arises in which a deadline is missed, the paper will proceed as normal and
> money will be refunded to the author. An author choosing the fast-track
> option is only benefiting from a quicker decision. The introduction of this
> service has no bearing on our editorial decision process – whether we
> accept, reject or request revisions – and we have worked with Rubriq to be
> confident that their reviewer reports are of the same standard as we would
> expect from our own *Scientific Reports *reviewers. This is an opt-in
> small scale pilot for a limited period of time, and will not affect the
> overall service we provide to authors who do not choose the service. Our
> aim is to experiment with different options to deliver author choice.
>
>
>
> We can confirm that we have received a letter from a subset of the
> Editorial Board Members of the journal regarding this trial.  We take their
> concerns very seriously and very much value all of our Editorial Board
> Members and the expertise they bring, and we are hopeful that we can
> address their concerns.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Amy Bourke
>
>
>
> Amy Bourke
> Corporate Communications Manager
> Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan
> E: amy.bourke at palgrave.com
>
> T: 020 7843 4603 | M: +44 (0) 7703717212
>
>
>
> *From:* open-science [mailto:open-science-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rayna
> *Sent:* 31 March 2015 13:25
> *To:* open-science; open-access at lists.okfn.org
> *Subject:* [open-science] Fast-forward peer review for a fee
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> In this week's installment of that's-not-the-way-to-do-it series, we have
> Nature Scientific Reports enabling authors to pay for a peer review to go
> faster:
> http://news.sciencemag.org/scientific-community/2015/03/editor-quits-journal-over-pay-expedited-peer-review-offer
>
>
>
> Other than the public (and vocal) resignation of one of the journal's
> editors, I have seen a few more equally vocal reactions of protest:
> https://twitter.com/Alexis_Verger/status/581423795627528193
> https://twitter.com/anxosan/status/582579642596519937
>
> An open letter from Scientific Reports' editors has also been circulated:
> http://allariz.uc3m.es/~anxosanchez/.transfer/letter_Sci_Rep_paid_fast-track_review.pdf
>
> Apparently, this has happened before:
> https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/protest-of-fast-tracking-fees-two-journals-respond-and-one-bows-out/
>
> This begs a set of questions:
>
> - how is this money used? Is the reviewer paid for his work?
>
> - do the reviewers know that a paper they are reviewing is being paid for
> to "fast-forward"? If no, what guarantees they will do within deadline? And
> if they miss the promised deadline, what happens to the paper? If reviewers
> know there has been payment to accelerate peer review, then how does the
> journal avoid monetary influence?
>
> - will there be a notification somewhere on the paper in print that it has
> benefited faster review thanks to financials?
> - ...
>
> Interested to hear your thoughts: although this does not directly touch
> upon open access, it does question the fundamentals of research ethics...
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rayna
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Change l'ordre du monde plutôt que tes désirs."
>
> http://me.hatewasabi.info/
>
> [image:
> http://t.signaletre.com/e1t/o/5/f18dQhb0S7ks8dDMPbW2n0x6l2B9gXrN7sKj6v5dj0qW1q0JLs3M2sqlVfmYdz3LvrVvW4PVGtP1k1H6H0?si=5234161665703936&pi=bc8fa20a-d2ab-4f01-8316-74fd370a38fe]
>
>
> ********************************************************************************
>
>
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone
> who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this
> e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or
> any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor
> Macmillan Publishers International Limited nor any of their agents accept
> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and
> not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or Macmillan
> Publishers International Limited or one of their agents.
>
> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor Macmillan
> Publishers International Limited nor any of their agents accept any
> responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its
> attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and
>
> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan
> Publishers Limited or Macmillan Publishers International Limited or their
> agents by means of e-mail communication.
>
> Macmillan Publishers Limited. Registered in England and Wales with
> registered number 785998. Macmillan Publishers International Limited.
> Registered in England and Wales with registered number 02063302.
>
> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS
>
> Pan Macmillan, Priddy and MDL are divisions of Macmillan Publishers
> International Limited.
> Macmillan Science and Education, Macmillan Science and Scholarly,
> Macmillan Education, Language Learning, Schools, Palgrave, Nature
> Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, Macmillan Science Communications and
> Macmillan Medical Communications are divisions of Macmillan Publishers
> Limited.
>
> ********************************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20150331/3d56c06c/attachment-0002.html>