blog

Anyone who doubts the inefficiencies and flaws of the current peer-review system would do well to read a review article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience (Dec 2011) and evaluated for F1000 by Gary Aston-Jones and David Moorman.

The article, entitled “Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal” by Dwight Kravitz and Chris Baker of the National Institute of Mental Health at the US NIH, highlights several serious problems with the scientific publishing machine. In particular, the authors note:

• The average 221 days that it takes to get a paper published delays scientific progress as well as young scientists’ careers
• Considering reviewers’ efforts, time spent by authors on revisions, and publication fees, the cost to publish a single peer-reviewed paper in the authors’ field of neuroscience (which publishes some 2,000 papers annually) is over $4,000
• Designed to help publishers prioritize papers, the peer-review system creates an adversarial relationship between reviewers and authors instead of providing useful feedback to authors about the scientific merit of their work.

Most for-profit publishers argue that the review process chaperoned by their editors ensures high standards of scientific research. Not true, argue Kravitz and Baker. “The system is so stochastic and redundant as to be an active hindrance to the progress of research,” they say. Yet the authors are careful not to blame publishers: “This paper is an indictment of the service that we, as a field, ask them to provide.”

How do the authors propose fixing the system? Start by rethinking a publishing model based on limitations that are ancient history. With no need for physical copies of journals, the cost of paper, printing, and distribution has become irrelevant, so publishers could and should guarantee publication for any paper submitted, they say.

Gary Aston-Jones and David Moorman from the Medical University of South Carolina, Faculty Members in the Cognitive Neuroscience section, rate the paper a ‘Must Read‘, and regard the authors’ proposal as “straightforward and results in an improved experience for the entire scientific community.” Aston-Jones and Moorman summarize it this way:

“Reviewers comment and critique on submissions (reviewed in a double-blind fashion) specifically to improve them, publication is typically guaranteed, and a rating system is imposed based on comments of the reviewers and an editorial board with additional interactive reviews continuing after publication to adjust the rated value of the publication. The authors also include additional details such as ways for categorizing published literature to facilitate interaction with existing and future publications with similar subjects. Reviewers are compensated for their efforts and editors compete to attract the best research. The end result is a rapid, unbiased, and complete means of publication of results with built-in filters to assist readers in navigating the growing number of publications.”

The new publishing process that Kravitz and Baker propose “does not completely demolish the existing system, but streamlines it and optimizes it to leverage the currently available technology.” But, they acknowledge, “the process of reforming the current system of publishing will be long, arduous, and fraught with uncertainty.” Indeed.

Editor’s Note: Stay tuned for our announcement next week about F1000 Research, a repository for original research that tackles many of these issues.