The Review Procedure Should Live On Transparent Non Confidential

A few days ago, I was alerted to a newspaper on Zelkova yesteryear Zhang et al., published inward Tree Genetics & Genomes, because the authors cited our study from 2005 (Denk & Grimm 2005). Although, I’m out-of-business, I had to aspect at it (old habits), in addition to I lost it. How could this transcend the review process?
TGG is (well, was) a proper journal. I wrote a pair of mails, including i holler for the responsible editor to clarify his conclusion (I volition write a post on this, i time the story evolved). And I got a swift reply (he was the exclusively i who answered so far to i of my mails):

Dear Guido,
As y'all are good aware of the entire review procedure is strictly confidential, pregnant that I tin non comment on whatever business office of it inward response to a direct email. Instead I would similar to direct y'all to the EiC of Tree Genetics in addition to Genomes if y'all direct hold whatever comments or if y'all direct hold whatever formal complaints to file.
Sincerely,
-Pär Ingvarsson

There it was again, my former companion, the Impermeable Fog called review procedure confidentiality. Protecting the weak (editors in addition to peers) from the wrath of the evil authors (and readers, inward this case).

First, a graphic for those who direct hold non published scientific papers to explicate the battlefield known equally single-blind peer review process.

Idealised scheme of the single-blind confidential review process

Second, permit us listing the pros in addition to contras (well, depending on the viewpoint). The 2 principal arguments for keeping the Impermeable Fog are:

1. Ensure that the peers tin freely limited their thought on the submitted paper. This implies that peers direct hold to fearfulness retribution yesteryear the authors, when they criticise their work. Don’t think nosotros tin live on mature plenty to bargain amongst criticism without going old-testament: You rejected my paper, I’ll plough downwardly yours. Eye for an eye!
2. Spare unexperienced authors or non-native English-speakers the humiliation caused yesteryear the originally submitted version. We all (should) larn from our errors, in addition to at that spot should live on no shame most it. Particularly, if y'all are unexperienced. Of course, nosotros cannot aspect that companies generating profits of 1 billion £ inward vi months tin afford professional person linguistic communication editing services for non-Anglosaxon authors. (Those services accuse closed to 15–25 € per page, quite a sum, compared to the 3000$ large publishing companies charge for open-access, in addition to regarding that the park newspaper has max. fifteen pp...) But it is quite slow to recruit a retired Anglosaxon equally co-author to create clean the English linguistic communication of the paper, inward instance y'all can’t afford to pay the professional person proof-reading service yesteryear yourself.

But at that spot are to a greater extent than of import arguments for keeping the Impermeable Fog:

• Prominent co-authors do non direct hold to convey the responsibleness (and blame) for a poorly designed in addition to written newspaper submitted yesteryear their students or 2^nd or 3^rd Blue Planet collaborators.
• Peers can trash a operate because of personal or science-political reasons. Peers know who the authors are, in addition to they know who the editor is (see graphic). So, an of import soul tin easily flex his (rarely her) muscles to forcefulness the editor into a decision. Or, inward the words of Jim Reiding, editor of the American mag Palynology: ‘One really well-qualified researcher [who stayed anonymous] asked for “reject in addition to resubmit”. I must abide yesteryear that.’ (Two other anonymous peers were really positive, in addition to a third, also non an un-prominent soul inward the acre who signed his review called for a major revision.)
• Editors don’t direct hold to convey whatever responsibleness for the papers they direct hold deemed publishable. They tin also direct not-really-experts or hopeful fresh hereafter authors to deed equally peers, when the actual experts are currently unavailable for (unwilling to) review.
• Peers in addition to editors can also pack together to avoid heretic or critical ideas existence published. You may retrieve #parsimonygate, which, actually, was no surprise at all (see also this post). There are in all probability worse cases, which nosotros don’t know most because the review procedure is confidential to protect us from the evil inward the (scientific) world.
• Authors, peers, in addition to editors can found syndicates, transforming the ‘peer review’ into a ‘pal review’ procedure (apparently something providing a honest opinion.
  
  But at that spot is an choice that seems to operate exactly fine in addition to should live on the rule.
  
  

  Just brand the peer review procedure transparent yesteryear publishing the master draft, the peer reviews, the authors’ rebuttal letter(s), in addition to the editor’s conclusion letter(s).

  
  One mag that is fully dedicated to transparency (and increasingly successful), including the review procedure in addition to without forcing authors in addition to reviewers exposing themselves to perceived or existent threats of retribution, is PeerJ. They locomote out it to the authors to determine on show-all or hide how the newspaper came into existence (they recommend to show; in addition to many do). I published most of my terminal professional person papers there.
  I was shocked, how consistently constructive in addition to careful reviews tin be, fifty-fifty from peers who seem to live on quite sceptic most your operate (if I made a PeerJ-like experience 10 years ago, I perhaps would withal live on a professional person scientist). Traditionally, the papers that I was involved in in addition to got dumped into the Impermeable Fog had most 25% constructive (or acre positive) reviews; the residual was something inward betwixt pure proofing (language naturally, structure, format) or full general nagging on the i end, in addition to utterly incompetent, inacceptable, self-centred sermons on the other (I programme to post a best-of, seize amongst teeth me Fog!).
  Also, all editors of PeerJ handling our papers seemed to live on truly inward it, no thing whether the theme was a tiny curiosity (Grímsson, Grimm & Zetter 2017; the newspaper Palynology could non issue because the editor had to abide to the anonymous expert, in addition to whose critiques nosotros exactly ignored when revising the newspaper for PeerJ) or something that may alter an entire acre of scientific discipline (Bomfleur, Grimm & McLoughlin 2017); reviews, editor's letter, in addition to response include some really educative points for researchers inward the touched fields, so convey a look.
  The latter is a priceless boon of transparent peer review. The oftentimes educative give-and-take betwixt authors, peers, in addition to editors does non dissipate into the obscurity of the Impermeable Fog. Unexperienced researchers tin follow the mechanics of the peer review procedure of similar papers. Ideally, helping them to avoid the same errors that nosotros made. Thus, it potentially enhances the character of submissions, in addition to reduces the workload for peers in addition to editors.
  
  Other journals practising review procedure transparency are e.g. The EMBO Journal (see also this article inward Nature) or some of the journals published yesteryear Copernicus Publishers on behalf of the European Geosciences Union such equally Biogeosciences or Climates of the Past.
  
  But, the most hitting declaration for review transparency is:
  

  Contributions of the peers in addition to editors are clearly visible.

  And this is good deserved in addition to long overdue.
  
  Fact is: Whether acting equally peer or editor, the Impermeable Fog prevents honest gains from participating inward the review process (except occassional personal enlightment).
  [Info for non-scientists: Neither authors, nor peers, nor editors are truly paid for their operate on publications; they produce this because they (as authors) direct hold to, to acquire an elongation, grants, in addition to eventually a permanent position, or (as peers in addition to editors) desire or experience obliged to because they are idealistic or for i of the shadier reasons outlined to a higher house (see illustration inward my introductory post). Most of them could brand much improve purpose of their time.]
  
  For instance, when, as peer, I brand a half-ready newspaper publishable in addition to expose myself (which some journals explicitly prohibit “to protect their peers and objectivity of the review process”), the best I tin promise for is a house inward the acknowledgements. Possibly inward the same describe amongst the other peer, who did nothing. Worst case: amongst the nagging feeling that at that spot are co-authors on the newspaper who obviously did non pass half-a-day thinking most this detail study (because if they did, I would non direct hold needed to pass so much fourth dimension on the review). It tin also plough over off that I pass days writing a really careful, but critical review, but the minute peer says “publish as-is” – for whatever argue – in addition to the editor lets the authors follow that opinion  – for whatever reason. The Impermeable Fog volition comprehend this, in addition to equally a peer, you're saltation yesteryear confidentiality in addition to incapable of doing anything against this.
  
  As editor, I am inward a permanent quandary. It tin convey a lot of attempt to honour peers willing to supply professional person in addition to timely reports. I may direct hold to settle amongst some really suboptimal choices inward the destination (or curvature the rules), spell the authors are desperately awaiting a conclusion because they demand the newspaper out. I also may direct hold to locomote on an oculus on the possible impact (e.g. to locomote on the mag at an IF > 2). And I produce all this in add-on to my full-time project equally a scientist. I may fifty-fifty honour myself inward the province of affairs that I honour a newspaper quite good, but the (expert) reviewer(s) are destroying it (this happened to several editors of my papers, apologies), ending-up trying to honour loop-holes to direct hold the newspaper despite mag regulations. [Still grateful to Edith Zimmer for her handling of the, dorsum in addition to so quite heretic, newspaper on Isothecium (Draper, Hedenäs & Grimm 2007), which got a quick bad review, which she effectively exactly ignored in addition to told us to produce the same, in addition to when she got sick waiting months for the needed second, she did it herself in addition to published our paper, inward some violation of mag policy; 48 citations so far demo that this was non a bad conclusion for the touching on element of the journal.]
  
  Review documents of PeerJ, Biogeosciences, in addition to Climates of the Past direct hold their ain permanent doi, hence, they tin live on cited. PeerJ farther indirectly awards peers. Authors tin pay i time for a lifetime of open-access publishing, but the membership gets frozen (de-frost fee is 99$), when y'all are non giving dorsum i time a twelvemonth yesteryear acting equally a peer, engaging inward a Q&A, or an online discussion
  
  The transparent review procedure ensures fair handling of authors in addition to tin aid to develop in addition to guide immature researchers, it prevents corruption, in addition to allows peers in addition to editors to convey credit for their work. It is a win-cube situation!
  
  
  

  So why are at that spot withal so really many journals using a non-transparent single-blind review saltation yesteryear confidentiality? 

  Because the public, the non-scientists, are non bothered yesteryear the fact that their coin (see graphic above) is used to locomote on upward a shady system. And equally inward whatever other shady system, at that spot are victims in addition to profiteers.
  It’d live on slow to blame authors, peers, in addition to editors to brand the most out of the opportunities provided yesteryear the Impermeable Fog. Why don’t nosotros exactly boycott journals that produce non enact transparent review processes? Because, scientists demand papers inward journals amongst equally high equally possible touching on to acquire jobs in addition to inquiry money, in addition to this agency many are somewhat limited inward their choice, where to issue during phases of their career. You play yesteryear the rules of the Impermeable Fog or y'all tin forget most publishing inward those journals. Decline the invitation of an editor, who was your supervisor, may live on your adjacent peer or fifty-fifty co-operation partner? Bad idea, unless y'all tin afford to give the sack those bridges, too. And sometimes, y'all demand to acquire an editor of an established, no thing how foggy, mag for your adjacent career level. Plus, non all of us are working on an ethical basis. The Co-existence Approach is exactly i example for a method that would non direct hold cornered an unspoiled marketplace seat when the review procedure would live on transparent.
  
  Very few scientists tin afford to stand upward up openly against the system. And no-one tin tell how many of those who could afford to stand upward up, don’t desire to, because it’s so cosy inward the Fog.  
  The alter has to live on forced from the outside: inquiry agencies in addition to state-funded inquiry institutions, who generate most of the turn a profit of individual companies publishing science, should forcefulness those publishers to promote actual transparency of the review procedure (but regard e.g. Elsevier’s agreement of transparency).
  No exceptions (this includes you, Science and Nature, may your sky-rocking touching on factors residual inward peace). And the greater populace should convey involvement that they produce so, it’s their money!
  
  

  Add-On (4/10/2017)

  To convey upward the create produce against the windmills, I launched a petition at change.org. Sign upward in addition to nosotros tin attempt to disperse the Fog.