Peer Review for Journal Articles

Source: "Reviewing Peer Review," Bruce Alberts, Brooks Hanson and Katrina L. Kelner.
Science 4 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5885, p. 15.

This editorial point focuses on a crisis in institutionalized peer review. It recognizes that the system both helps journals select good articles and helps authors to improve their papers, but also that the huge volume of papers being submitted to the huge numbers of journals stresses both the patience of reviewers and the editorial staff of the journals.

Another issue is the increasing frequency of complex papers produced by multidisciplinary teams which in principle require multidisciplinary teams of reviewers.

Authors frequently submit a paper sequentially to a number of journals, seeking first to publish in more prestigious journals (which carry more weight with those handing out promotions and academic raises) and continuing until a journal finally is found to accept the paper. Multiple submissions involve multiple reviews, stressing the system. The authors suggest:

• Efforts by the academic system to prepare graduate students and young researchers to function as reviewers,
• Systems such as that of Faculty of 1000 that provides an alternative to ranking of journals that would provide information for the academic ranking of authors,
• Systems, such as now exist with some organizations publishing several journals, in which reviews could be shared.

I wonder whether a system might be considered like that used for matching candidates with medical schools. Each paper could be submitted to a "market institution" with a list of the author's preferences for journals in which it would be published. The paper would then be reviewed by a panel selected by the "market institution". The reviewers might make suggestions to improve a paper, make recommendations as to whether a paper warranted publication (perhaps on a scale of value), and make recommendations as to which journal would be the best fit for the paper. Journals would then select the papers that they would publish, seeking to accommodate author preferences as well as to assure the quality and coherence of the portfolio of articles it publishes.

The authors conclude:

Finally, and perhaps most important, authors, reviewers, and journal editors should keep in mind the ultimate goal of scholarly scientific publishing to advance our understanding of the natural world. Competition among labs and personal striving for excellence are forces that can be harnessed to accelerate our progress. But in excess these factors can be impediments. The scientific community must collectively ensure that the peer review process continues to serve the loftier goals of our enterprise, which ultimately benefits us all.