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

[P Kishor]

I applaud the desire to experiment, and also understand that in this case
there is no easy way to experiment without actually doing it in real life
(I mean, you can't really create a test environment of make-belief papers,
authors, reviewers and readers).

Nevertheless, something about this doesn't feel right. One of the NPG
journals already provided the ability to pay money to choose a less
restrictive license (can't find the link to that, perhaps they have
discontinued the practice) thereby sending a signal that more open licenses
were more expensive. Now we have this premium on speed. What next? A
premium on quality? And, all this on top of an APC that varies between a
thousand to several thousand bucks?

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:09 AM, 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
>
>


-- 
Puneet Kishor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20150331/65ec6ad3/attachment-0003.html>