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

Tue Mar 31 15:09:29 UTC 2015

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<mailto:amy.bourke at palgrave.com>
T: 020 7843 4603 | M: +44 (0) 7703717212<tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207703717212>

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/

********************************************************************************   
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.  
********************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20150331/451791e0/attachment-0003.html>