blog

We are nearing the end of 2018’s Peer Review Week and this year’s theme explores diversity and inclusion in peer review. Given that the F1000Prime Faculty comprises peer-nominated, internationally-renowned researchers, who review and recommend articles that they consider of greatest interest and merit, we wanted to capture their views and experiences.

We approached both female and male Faculty Members from all disciplines and levels of seniority with some questions about peer review, as well as to discuss any challenges they’ve experienced and how the process could better support diversity and inclusivity.

We share the responses we received back below providing an international perspective from a range of different sectors. 

In your opinion what are the benefits of peer review?

 

“I think we gain higher quality papers and in the longer term, more valuable research studies.” Gertjan Kaspers, Head Pediatric Oncology/Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Netherlands

“The greatest benefit is to see different views of the same study, as this enriches and ultimately improves the work itself.” Enrique Morales, Servicio de Nefrologia, Spain

“Essentially the following three:

• detect errors and mistakes in the design and/or production and/or analysis of experiments
• challenge the authors on their interpretation if necessary and request textual changes to highlight a debate
• suggest additional experiments ONLY IF required to check a result with a different approach and reach a convincing conclusion NEVER to add another extra 10 supp figures!
• and NOT to decide whether or not a paper is appropriate for a particular journal.” Thierry Galli, INSERM, France

“Others outside of the research get to share their opinions on the experimental work and its meaning.” Neal Young, National Institutes of Health, US

“I think what is most beneficial is that the peer review process might identify some errors or wrong conclusions in a manuscript that was not taken into account by the authors.” Ralf Weiskirchen, RWTH University Hospital, Germany

 “Sets a high bar for publications.” Ye Che, Pfizer Inc, US

Have you experienced any bias, difficulties or challenges with peer review during your career either as an author or reviewer (or both)? If so, what did you encounter?

 

“There are times when authors submit an article that they feel is good and important research, but it gets rejected. Not because there is a problem with the paper itself but ultimately due to competition from another research group working on a similar project. This is frustrating and means valuable time is lost.” Gertjan Kaspers, Head Pediatric Oncology/Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Netherlands

“I’ve experienced them all, difficulties, prejudices … etc. In general, I think authors of non-English language can have greater difficulty in publishing studies, as their papers are judged on the quality of their English rather than the quality of their research.” Enrique Morales, Servicio de Nefrologia, Spain

“As an author, the main problem I have encountered has come from peers who do not read or understand the article thus request additional experiments which either don’t make much sense or do not contribute significantly to the overall message of the article.

There is also the case of reviewers who having requested the additional experiments are still not satisfied with the results and so request more experiments at the second round of revision. I think this attitude of reviewers relates more to their idea that the paper is not good enough to be published in the journal for which they are reviewing. Such behaviour should be banned on the grounds that this is an editorial decision.

 As a reviewer, the main challenge relies in the amount of data generated from a multitude of technologies in modern articles. This makes the task of checking the data almost out of reach in most cases because none of us truly has such multi-disciplinary expertise.” Thierry Galli, INSERM, France

“Absolutely, including egregious unethical and political acts.” Neal Young, National Institutes of Health, US

“Indeed, I have, particularly when peer reviewing studies that strongly match my field of research. Like many others, I have some views that formed during the last years or decades. So, when I review a paper that challenges my views, I guess I am more critical.” Ralf Weiskirchen, RWTH University Hospital, Germany

In what ways could the publication environment be improved to better support diversity and inclusivity in peer review?

 

“One of the options could be that authors submit papers anonymously.” Enrique Morales, Servicio de Nefrologia, Spain

“The complexity of modern articles requires a more technical and precise approach to reviewing: there is a need to verify the statistical analysis for instance. Maybe there is a need for more detailed questions to be answered by reviewers, or reviewers could thoroughly check the sections on which they are experts on and editors would ensure the reviewers’ expertise is complementary enough.

Discussion between reviewers is a good thing to help reach a consensus. Reviewing is a service for authors and for science rather than for journals. At least I think that is the way it should be.” Thierry Galli, INSERM, France

“Pay reviewers.” Neal Young, National Institutes of Health, US

“Like many journals do already, I would suggest including the names of reviewers on the title page of a publication.” Ralf Weiskirchen, RWTH University Hospital, Germany

“More authors to use preprint services, e.g. BioRxiv and ChemRxiv.” Ye Che, Pfizer Inc, US

Given the diverse fields of research, do you think there is a one-size-fits-all solution to peer review?

 

“No”, was the unanimous response to this question, but Thierry Galli had a bit more to say on the matter.

“That is the million-dollar question! Unfortunately, there is not a magic bullet and both authors and reviewers can make errors. Therefore, publishing reviews and having a transparent process is a way to identify if reviewers missed a point after publication. It is also important to educate young scientists about the history of science. I think it would be fascinating to read what reviewers thought about articles that 10, 20, 30 and many more years after the research made history.” Thierry Galli, INSERM, France

F1000 will be providing our own list of tangible outcomes and outlining what we plan to do to alleviate biases to make peer review more diverse and inclusive. Watch this space….