Abstract
Journals and the scientific literature are inexorably linked to peer review. The process by which manuscripts are evaluated varies to some degree from publication to publication. It has traditionally been blinded to the extent that neither the authors nor reviewers are made aware of each others' identity. The concept behind this practice is that anonymity reduces bias. However, most of us in the scientific community become very familiar with the work of others in our particular field. It is often rather easy to determine the source of reviewers' comments as a result of interactions with colleagues and peers at scientific meetings as well as via print and other media. Many journals have discontinued the practice of removing the names and institutions of authors from manuscripts prior to circulating them to reviewers for their assessment. However, the identity of reviewers is not generally disclosed to authors (2 –6).
The Scientist recently highlighted a series of articles and editorials on the peer review process (2 –5). The journal's cover graphic draws a line in the sand, proclaiming “Peer Review: Rejected? It's failing science. See how some are trying to fix it”. The series of articles that follow consider several problems levied against the present system, including assertions that it is too slow, misses or fails to deal with fraud, rejects true innovation, and the fact that reviewers often act on biases.
Sarah Greene's opening editorial (3) considers the fact that scientific peer review was invented over 300 years ago and that one of the major problems with modern peer review is the so-called impact factor (IF). She notes that the IF is currently regarded as the standard by which the import of one's work, a particular journal's weight, and the basis upon which academic careers and research tracks are measured. She also points out that the system is flawed and can be subjected to “popularity metrics”, which can be skewed or gamed, such that “intellectual merit can be lost in the shuffle”(3).
It is not an infrequent occurrence that a prospective author or research group considers the impact factor of a journal prior to submitting a manuscript. In fact, some will ask about the IF before they submit their work. Generally speaking, the IF is computed based on the number of articles published in a two-year period and the number of citations to those articles in the subsequent year. For example, the more often articles published in Photomedicine and Laser Surgery are cited, the higher our IF becomes. Thus, authors submitting and publishing in this and other journals affect the IF by including works from this Journal in their references. Similarly, self-citation can inflate the IF of particular authors' work.
William Pearce discusses the premise that we cite too many articles and that the citations are often inappropriate or incorrect (4). He notes that PubMed and the development of reference database management software has made it increasingly easy to compile and organize large numbers of abstracts and articles. This feature is acknowledged to have facilitated the ability to perform comprehensive literature reviews. However, these powerful tools have also encouraged less critical reading of cited literature, and inclusion of numerous diverse publications rather than the most relevant few, in an effort to support a particular work or point of view (4). This has created additional burdens on the peer review process, an erosion of scholarly rigor, and a dilution of the value of the IF as a measure of journal prominence in Pearce's view (4). Pearce further notes that there is increasing pressure on investigators to publish more articles commensurate with a decreasing emphasis on manuscript quality. This has in turn led to what he describes as the “minimum publishable unit”, which is defined as the smallest amount of data that can pass peer review (4).
Pearce proposes that students, colleagues, and co-authors must critically read each article they wish to cite in its entirety and that they should cite only the best, strongest, and most original publications. He further suggests that the practice of citing only those works that support a position, while ignoring opposing views, should be curtailed (4).
Further evidence of chinks in the impact factor armor are found in follow-up articles in the same issue of The Scientist, aptly entitled: “Breakthroughs from the Second Tier”(5) and “I Hate Your Paper”(6). The former cites five breakthrough articles that were published in less prestigious journals. It begins “[o]ften the exalted scientific and medical journals sitting atop the impact factor pyramid are considered the only publications that offer legitimate breakthroughs in basic and clinical research. But some of the most important findings have been published in considerably less prestigious titles”(5). The articles they highlight eventually accumulated at least 1,000 citations, and are recognized to have changed their respective fields forever. They were published in “lower profile journals”, having been rejected by or not submitted to higher-tier journals for fear of being rejected.
Both articles (5,6) support the notion that traditional peer review discourages innovative ideas by rejecting field-changing articles, while favoring articles that fall into the status quo or represent the “hot” fields of the day (5). They note that reviewers are biased by personal motives, and that the system produces too many articles to review (5, 6). The present system is too slow, resulting in delays in publication and adversely affecting public health, the ability to successfully obtain grant funding, and credit for ideas (6). Of further note is the premise that the true importance of an article is most often not immediately evident, and that the true determination of the impact of a work on its field may require months or years to evaluate (5).
Solutions for some of these problems include elimination of anonymous peer review, use of online publishing and post publication peer review with the reviews and the identity of the reviewers being part of the record, and the novel concept of “recycling” reviews (2 –6). This last solution exists in the form of the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium where member journals receive and share the reviews for articles, particularly those that were rejected by one of the members (6). This novel concept seeks to reduce the number of reviewers a journal must recruit annually, reduces the time in review, and shortens the time to publication (6).
For our part, this Journal is indebted to its Editorial Board and peer reviewers for their diligence and hard work on our behalf. We are far from perfect. However, we endeavor to present high-quality material and an even-handed process for its evaluation. We believe our recently implemented changes will improve our product. In addition, we use tools such as iThenticate® to check submissions for originality by comparing them to already published works, to reduce the possibility of inadvertently publishing fraudulent or plagiarized material. These efforts are in constant evolution. Together we strive to get it right.