blog

As the new academic year begins, here at F1000 our thoughts are focused on peer review and Peer Review Week 2017. During this week, we will delve into the meaning of this year’s theme ‘Transparency in Peer Review’, which is close to our hearts at F1000.

We have lined up various content to share with you throughout the week, so keep your eyes on our blogs. To kick off, we asked members of our Advisory Board to share their thoughts on ‘Transparency in Peer Review’. We will also be presenting some of our own research findings later in the week.

Then, on Thursday 14^th September, we have ‘Defining transparency in peer review’, a panel discussion followed by an audience Q&A at the Francis Crick Institute in London. We hope you’ve already registered for the event, but if not, sign up now for the last remaining seats. You can also follow the event via the hashtag #defntansp and we will be writing up the event afterwards.

Throughout the week, we expect many questions to arise, ideas to be exchanged and lots of conversations around this year’s Peer Review Week theme. You can join in the wider discussion using the hashtag #PeerRevWk17.

Without further ado, let’s get things started. We approached several of our Advisory Board with some questions about transparency in peer review and below are their responses. We will post an additional blog with more views from our Advisory Board and staff later in the week.

What is the biggest challenge faced by transparent/open peer review? And how do you think we should overcome it?

Etienne Joly, Research Scientist, IPBS, France

“I think the biggest challenge for transparent/open peer review lies with the fear that some scientists may have that their peer reviewers, who are often their direct competitors, may hold a grudge against them for undermining their chances to publish.

While this would be a bona fide concern with top tier journals [….], I perceive that this problem becomes almost irrelevant with the approach adopted by F1000Research. Using this model, the articles are published immediately, and the referees are only asked to report on the scientific soundness of the work, and to provide constructive criticism.

I can, however, envisage certain cases where a referee would find faults in a paper and would not dare to voice them out for fear of reprisal. For such cases, which would probably be extremely rare, it may be worth putting in place a set procedure whereby the referees would be able to contact the journal editors in confidence about their particular concern. The journal editors could then seek a panel of outside independent opinions on the particular question. And if there is general consensus that there is a fault in the paper being refereed, a collegial review could then be published regarding that concern, rather than being signed by a single person. And if the field is split, then the issue should be made public and open for further discussions.”

Philippe Saas, Director at the University of Franche-Comté, France

“I was surprised to hear from some of my colleagues that transparent/open peer review system is biasing the review process. According to them, the fact that you know the reviewers’ names renders the reviewers less critical. I do not share this thought. I believe that this process is a way for reviewers to help the authors and try to improve their work. Unfortunately, the impact factors are important in the career of a researcher whatever the peer review process. In contrast, the publication of the criticisms made by the reviewers and the answer of the authors together with the manuscript is clearly an advantage. It allows the reader to appreciate some “weaknesses” of the manuscript and to learn how reviewers assess a manuscript.”

Carlos Morel, Director, National Institute of Science and Technology for Innovation in Neglected Disease, Brazil 

“Perhaps the biggest challenge faced by “transparent/open peer review” is the peer review process itself as it operates today in most journals. The pressure to patent these days is as important today as the pressure to publish, and more and more of our colleagues want to get both things as fast as possible. I believe that on one hand preprint servers will become more and more familiar, leaving authors more relaxed to carefully select which journal to send their work to for regular publication. So, regular reviewers will have to take into account the comments that “unpublished preprints” would have received from preprint server readers and their opinions. In other words, they will face the challenge to review papers that perhaps dozens or hundreds of other scientists would have already read and commented on. Would they be “independent” and express their own opinions, or would they follow the “majority” opinion already present on the Internet?”

The transparency provided by being able to read other peer review reports can act as a learning aid. What other ways do you think transparency in peer review can help train the next generation of peer reviewers?

Nicola Mulder, Associate Professor at the University of Cape Town

“Yes, I think seeing how people perform reviews is very good training for new reviewers as there may be things that people with other areas of expertise will look for that you may not have considered. Review has an element of personal experience and expertise brought by reviewers.”