HUM-MOLGEN archive: LITE: survey 97/98 results; inviting editorial

Subject: LITE: -Survey 97/98 results; -Inviting editorial: "Moderated pre-printservices, open peer review" ****** Dear HUM-MOLGEN subscriber: Below please find the first results of questions 9/10 of the HUM-MOLGEN survey 1997/1998 directly concerning the LITE section. I would like to thank those who took the time of completing the survey, which gives us the opportunity to improve our service. The results of the survey are such that it is extremely useful to ask your comments about the most favoured form of moderation of submitted manuscripts (A4 letters or comprehense reviews only) to HUM-MOLGEN in an inviting editorial (below; "Moderated pre-printservices, open peer review"). HUM-MOLGEN documents can be viewed at: http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/HUM-MOLGEN/documents.html ******* The HUM-MOLGEN survey was made possible by the dutch Institute for innovative scientific information exchange IWI. ******* Results to questions: 9. Pre-print publishing provides researchers with the chance to immediately publish interesting research results (including "negative" results), abstracts, observations or theories. Once the writer signs a copyright agreement with a traditional publisher and lets the electronic publisher know, the electronic version is immediately removed. Do you think pre-print publishing would be a useful addition to HUM-MOLGEN? A. Yes 30.0% B. Yes, but only if it is moderated 50.0% C. No 7.0% D. Don't know or no opinion 13.0% ANSWER: 10. If HUM-MOLGEN offered pre-print publishing on its www site, with brief announcements on the listserv, would you be likely to publish anything? A. Yes 43.0% B. No 47.0% C. Undecided 10.0% ************** Inviting editorial (please reply only according to the rules stated below!): MODERATED PREPRINTSERVICES, OPEN PEER REVIEW With 80 % in favour, the HUM-MOLGEN survey clearly indicates an overwhelming support for "(moderated) preprint services". But what does this actually mean? Do "moderated preprint-services" more or less equal fast "traditional peer review publishing"? Should moderation only be limited to low-level editing, combined with a large degree of openness when it comes to scientific communication exchange, as is already common on moderated electronic listserv communication? Do these results indicate a further need for rapid communication between scientists, or does it indicate an increasing need for a more open peer review system, in which f.i. referee-reports are signed by the reviewer, and additional public comments can be given directly on the WWW? These questions become more and more important in a time-frame in which traditional publishers increasingly succeed in copying their physical scientific publishing systems into an exactly matching electronic WWW world. Is it true that scientists and clinicians, who feed, run and pay for the majority of the (electronic) scientific publication system, are once again on the side-track? It is often argued that the quality of the biomedical research literature basically depends on the (1) the quality and integrity of (the work of) the scientists or clinicians who submit articles, and (2) the quality and integrity of a (peer review) system which focuses on quality control of the scientific content of the submitted articles. In an editorial of Nature Medicine, November 1996, it was stated that, "in an ideal world, the idea of anonymous peer review would be an oxymoron, since tradition teaches that scientists are paragons of not only virtue but objectivity, ready at the drop of an editorial request to review a colleague's work with a view to making the science the best it can be." However, few will argue that the"ideal world of today" is completely different form the "traditional ideal world", in which the traditional peer review system was established. Today, increased publication pressure, decreased publication time, increased competition for grants, decreasing academic freedom, temporary work assignments and possibilities to earn even some good money with science (!) potentially erode personal responsibilities and scientific integrity, which is fundamental for the traditional peer review system. While the traditional peer review system still appears to work well in an undefined (large) number of cases, is there any one scientist out there who does not know about, or experienced one or more misuses of the traditional peer review system? Following the discussions about this subject in a number of journals over the last few years, I have the impression that a very large number of scientists indeed want to preserve some form of moderation when it comes to publishing their results, but more and more insist on more personal responsibility, integrity and some form "open peer review". Is this true? If this would be true, why do we observe so little change in the traditional peer review system? Is it a conservative attitude or existing interests of publishers, editors or the editorial boards? Is it potential fear of reviewers, who may be reluctant to be candid, because of potential damage to their careers? A common argument used against a more open peer review system is that it might invoke conflicts among reviewers and scientists, upon rejection of manuscripts. However, if the reviewers comments are based on sound scientific reasoning, data and arguments (the latter should be judged by the (independent) editor, or, in case of a more open peer review system, basically the scientific audience) there seems to be no a priori reason for potential conflicts whatsoever. Would it be possible that in a more open peer review system, the initial scientific quality of the submitted document further increases due to direct public exposure? Would the same not be true for the reviewers comments? Would the latter not lessen the reviewers/editorial burden on scientists? In an electronic age, would it not be possible for authors to alter their initially publicly submitted manuscripts according public reviewers comments, as long as the status of the manuscript is entirely clear? Or, do we stick with the traditional peer review system? Please advice (HUM-MOLGEN@nic.surfnet.nl), your answers will be used to improve the LITE section of HUM-MOLGEN. A summary or selection of your answers will be published in the documents section of HUM-MOLGEN WWW and/or may (of course, in case of a selection, with your personal involvement or permission only) be submitted to a Journal in Human and Molecular genetics. Arthur Bergen for HUM-MOLGEN ******* RULES for REPLIES (we can and will not accept other forms): (1) State your full name, title and affiliations. (2) Replies should be no longer than 750 words. (3) The SUBJECT heading of your E-mail reply should at least start with: LITE: REPLY (4) E-mail your letter preferentially as an attachment in Word 6.0 or WordPerfect 6.0. (5) Send your replies to HUM-MOLGEN@nic.surfnet.nl (6) No more replies will be accepted after May 12th 1998. (7) Do NOT use the REPLY FUNCTION of your mail program Thank you in advance for your effort and collaboration ******** Copyright: HUM-MOLGEN ********