Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:11:32 +0200
From: Hans Ulrik Riisgaard <hur@biology.sdu.dk>
Subject: Re: VS: JARO peer review
To: joseph.santos-sacchi@yale.edu
Cc: Ole Nsbye Larsen <onl@biology.ou.dk>
Message-id: <3D329FD3.A57208DE@biology.sdu.dk>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Boundary_(ID_TgOw8dtRpScwi++IkTnp0w)"
X-Accept-Language: en
X-YaleITSMailFilter: Version 1.0c (attachment(s) not renamed)
References: <NDBBJIIJEMPAKCDDBJMHGEOBCJAA.onl@biology.sdu.dk>
Dear Dr. Santos-Sacchi,
With great interest, I have read your comments to the ARO members about the
peer review system (forwarded to me by my colleague Dr. Ole Nsbye Larsen). You
say that you want to have a discussion at the ARO about requiring reviewer
identification for your societal journal JARO, and you claim that this could
make a big positive change in science.
In MEPS, we are currently discussion the peer-review system, see the debate:
http://www.int-res.com/forum/peer_review.html
- see also the link to printed article: "The peer-review system: time for
re-assessment?"
As it appears, the proposal you want to bring up at the ARO has already been
discussed - and rejected. However, I should like to invite you to express your
opinion in the MEPS DISCUSSION FORUM. If you want to contribute to the debate
which have many different aspects, please send your text - as brief and concise
as possible - to me.
Kind regards,
Hans Ulrik
Dr. Hans Ulrik Riisgaard
Marine Biological Research Centre
University of Southern Denmark
Hindsholmsvej 11
DK-5300 Kerteminde
Denmark
Tel/Fax: +45 6532 1433
Email: hur@biology.sdu.dk
Home page:
http://www.biologi.sdu.dk/hjemmesider/vips/riisgaard_hans_ulrik/dk/vip.html
Ole Naesbye Larsen wrote:
Kre Hans Ulrik!Mon dette indlg ville vre noget for din fortlbende
diskussion af peer review-systemet? Her er jo et helt andet forum end
marinbiologerne men problemerne synes at vre de samme.HilsenOLE
-----Oprindelig
meddelelse-----
Fra: Joseph Santos-Sacchi [mailto:joseph.santos-sacchi@yale.edu]
Sendt: 14. juli 2002 17:19
Til: ARO members
Emne: JARO peer review
Dear ARO members,
I am writing to you about what we can do to ensure the health of the journal
peer review system, which is necessary to maintain high quality publications.
My concern is that too often (especially in a small field) careless reviewers
slow down the progress of science. I will use some of my own experiences as examples
to highlight this point.
In 1995, we submitted a manuscript to Neuron which presented some novel pieces
of information on stretch sensitivity of the outer hair cell lateral membrane
motor, now known as prestin. Two reviews were obtained; one was nicely done
with specific comments and questions on problems and suggestions for
improvement. The other review was outrageous, stating that there were too many
problems and inaccuracies to list. In short, no review was done, only a demand
for rejection. As is usual, the editor simply trusted the reviewers comments
and rejected the manuscript. I was upset by such treatment of the peer review
system. Needless to say, I wrote to the editor that this was unacceptable and
that I had never had a reviewer refuse to review a paper of mine! I do believe
that the editor was embarrassed that such a thing could happen, but in Neurons
case this was sufficient for rejection. Months later the manuscript was
published in the Biophysical Journal.
A few months ago, we submitted a paper to Science where a reviewer claimed that
we had made substantive errors in reasoning because the scale bar in a figure
was unlabeled instead the calibrations were written in the legend which the
reviewer missed because he did not read the legend. Again the editors blindly
accepted this and other absurdities of the reviewer! Of course, in Sciences
case this was sufficient for rejection.
Most recently, we submitted a paper to JARO where one reviewer overwhelmed me
with brazen statements that clearly indicated that he was unaware of the
literature. This time, the problem was too close to home. I wrote to the editor
detailing each inaccuracy and conceptual flaw of the reviewer, hoping to
convince a bright editor that the chosen reviewer was inept or possibly
purposefully in error. Despite some email interactions, nothing came of the
matter.
Events like these lead me to wonder what might happen if reviewers had to
identify themselves. I suspect that those reviewers who are honest and sincere
would have no problem, but those cavalier few would think twice before
producing brazen remarks, perhaps even refusing to review good news. Peer
review is very important; I look forward to getting insightful remarks from
reviewers so that my papers are made better. I have no problem being rejected
if there are problems that I missed. I would prefer this over publishing
inaccuracies. However, I reserve the right to respond to the editor if I find
reviewer errors. If a reviewer were identified, then either the reviewer could
respond to the queries of the author or the author could request in subsequent
submissions that he not be used as a reviewer. This is so important in a small
field like ours.
I bring this up to you so that we might have a discussion at the ARO about
requiring reviewer identification for our societal journal JARO. I think we
could make a big positive change in science if we championed this modification
to peer review. I am interested in your opinions pro and con.
Joe Santos-Sacchi
--
Joseph Santos-Sacchi, Ph.D.
Professor
Dept. of Surgery (Otolaryngology) and
Neurobiology
Yale University School of Medicine
BML 244
333 Cedar St.
New Haven, CT 06510
203-785-7566 (office)
203-785-5407 (lab)
joseph.santos-sacchi@yale.edu
http://www.med.yale.edu/surgery/otolar/santos/
jClamp for Windows - easy patch clamping
visit http://www.med.yale.edu/surgery/otolar/santos/jclamp.html