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

[Douglas Carnall]

Nature is using scientific methods to improve its internal procedures, so
congratulations to them for that. But I suspect that this particular study
is misguided.

Although authors naturally wish that their completed manuscript be reviewed
and published with a minimum of delay, publishers  have every incentive to
reduce staff costs by batching and queuing. The idea of injecting
'go-faster' money into such a peer review system probably seems natural to
a for-profit publisher looking to expand its "product" (i.e. find things to
do that people will pay for).

But it seem misdirected to me, because the most important thing that could
be done globally to make peer review more efficient would be to ensure that
reviewer reports aren't discarded when—as will happen >90-95% of the time
in a "glamour journal"—an article is rejected. This would reduce the
overall burden of peer review, which might help to improve review
turnaround times. Pre-print servers plus open post-publication review offer
another solution.

The BMJ has long offered "fast track publication"  ( < 1 month turnaround
claimed,
http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/fast-track-publication), but
no money changes hands. Rather, the the authors propose—and the editors
agree—that the public interest would be served by faster publication. One
might think of, say, an article relating to a fast moving epidemic, or that
introduces important new knowledge into a topical public debate. But even
here, being fast but wrong could also be detrimental, and the concept is at
least somewhat dubious.

It's been a while, but my memory is that it was authors who tended more to
the belief that their vital article was fast-trackable than did their
suavely urbane editors; it is presumably this egotism that NPG seeks to
exploit for fun and profit.

Regards to all,

D.

2015-03-31 14:24 GMT+02:00 Rayna <rayna.st at gmail.com>:

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Douglas Carnall
dougie.carnall at gmail.com
http://cabinetbeezer.info
Traduction vers l'anglais
Rédaction de textes en anglais
Coaching pour présentations en anglais
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20150402/edf2194c/attachment-0002.html>