Search  -  prev / next

Others

Dear editor,
I can only applaude your initiative;
The use (and abuse) of the anonimous peer-review-system has led into a
situation where the system has become more functional to extra scientific
issues (maintaining power, controlling competitors, exchanging manuscript
acceptance for favorable grant application review, meeting
invitations...) than to assuring the scientific quality of manuscripts. It
is sad to say this, but the editorial boards of a number of journals
is becoming more similar to organized crime than to a scientific
society; when a person (or group of persons) become recognized as an
"authority" in certain field, it is quite possible for that person or
group to permit publication in high level journals only to people
"recognized" by the group. The (ab-)use of such a position is almost
the rule.
Few examples (surely shared by many readers) are sufficient to
clarify the issue beyond any doubt.
Example 1. You send your paper
to a journal for publication; a competitor of you send similar data
to the same journal 1 month later (while your paper is still
submitted); the 2 papers are sent to 2 reviewers, one of which is the
same for the 2 papers and gives identical opinions and ratings; the
second reviewer of your paper is your competitor. Results: your paper
is rejected, and your competitor paper is accepted.
Example 2. You send data on a new drug used in a certain animal model
to a journal; the journal editor in charge of reviewing your
manuscript never worked on that drug but has a model similar to the
one used by you. Your paper is continously delayed (or even rejected
[depending on the {dis}honesty of the editor]) until the editor will
publish "your data" in his/her model.
Example 3. The above mentioned publications are used in applications
for competitive grants; you can imagine the outcame. The massive
infusion of money and competition into science is in good part
responsible for this phenomenon; this seems however an irreversible
change (at least for the foreseeble future), and thus it seem
unrealistic to try returning science to a "pre-money, pre-company"
situation.
The proposal for an open-review-system (ORS) is an excellent one, and
has been practiced by HMGN in the past, although for a very limted
number of publications. While almost everybody in the biomedical
field agrees to the need for "moderation" or "peer review" in
publishing results, the anonimate of the reviewer is not perceived as
an absolute need.
The ORS will undoubtly generate some problems, mainly concerning
inter-personal relations. However, knowing that the review will be
signed, will also refrain people from going into excesses, and using
the anonimate of the present system to hide superficial analyses or
personal motifs for negative assessments.


Carlo Gambacorti, MD, Editor,
Human Molecular Genetics Network
Diagnostics/Clinical Research Section


Headings
preprint services

Generated by documents 5.0 by Kai Garlipp
WWW: Kai Garlipp, Frank S. Zollmann.
7.0 © 1995-2023 HUM-MOLGEN. All rights reserved. Liability and Copyright.