Editor’s
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Laura L. Kiessling University of Wisconsin, Madison BOARD OF EDITORS
Jennifer A. Doudna University of California, Berkeley
Kai Johnsson Ecole Polytechnique Fe´de´rale de Lausanne
Anna K. Mapp University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Michael A. Marletta University of California, Berkeley
Peter H. Seeberger Eidgeno¨ssische Technische Hochschule
James R. Williamson The Scripps Research Institute EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Carolyn R. Bertozzi University of California, Berkeley
Brian T. Chait Rockefeller University
Tim Clackson ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Jon C. Clardy Harvard Medical School
Benjamin F. Cravatt The Scripps Research Institute
Peter B. Dervan California Institute of Technology
Rebecca W. Heald University of California, Berkeley
Linda C. Hsieh-Wilson California Institute of Technology
Tony Hunter Salk Institute
Stephen C. Kowalczykowski University of California, Davis
Richard H. Kramer University of California, Berkeley
Thomas V. O’Halloran Northwestern University
Hiroyuki Osada RIKEN
Anna M. Pyle Yale University
Ronald T. Raines University of Wisconsin, Madison
Charles Sawyers University of California, Los Angeles
Stuart L. Schreiber Harvard University
Peter G. Schultz The Scripps Research Institute
H. Ulrich Stilz Sanofi-Aventis, Frankfurt
Christopher T. Walsh Harvard Medical School
LETTER Experimenting with Peer Review
T
he current peer-review system began in the late 1800s. More than a century later, we at ACS Chemical Biology (ACS CB) and many of our colleagues in the publishing world are discussing how the system will evolve. The process of peer review is much like the ongoing discussions that take place in small communities, such as journal clubs, and among a larger group of scientists at conferences. In both cases, data are presented, questions are asked, and points are clarified with the expectation that the discourse will improve the science. In effect, peer review is an ongoing conversation between reviewers and authors. The emergence of the Internet and electronic publishing is changing the way we disseminate, discuss, and sanction scientific content. Can the new electronic tools be used to improve the quality of the review process and provide a more fruitful interaction among reviewers, authors, and readers? Answers might come from recent experiments with alternative open peer-review systems. Single-blind peer review (SBPR), in which the reviewer knows the identity of the author but not vice versa, took hold in the 1840s (1). The editorial board at Philosophical Transaction, a journal of the Royal Society of London, was asking scientists to read and comment on submitted papers. This system was only used when the editorial board lacked the expertise to evaluate the manuscript. In 1918, Arthur Lamb, the chief editor of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS), instituted a system that he hoped would remove perceived unfairness in the review process. Instead of using a select group of editorial board members to evaluate submitted manuscripts, Lamb sent papers to experts in the field for anonymous review. This peer-review system persevered at JACS and is now the norm for ⬎20,000 scientific journals. What is the purpose of peer review? It depends on whom you ask. It provides feedback and sometimes discussion among scientists. It also adds incentive for the authors of the paper to improve their manuscript, because their peers suggest they do so. Other scientists note that peer review also serves as a gatekeeper: it ensures that the published work meets certain criteria. In the current system, the anonymity of the reviewer seems necessary: it allows him or her the freedom to be honest and comment on whether an article should even be published. Lastly, some researchers contend that the current peer-review system can show university administrators that the work of a scientist merits his or her receiving tenure and promotion. Most scientists agree that SBPR is imperfect but that it works most of the time. If peer review is meant to be a conversation within the scientific community in which reviewers engage in a debate with authors, then would the review process benefit from more back-and-forth discussion among reviewers, between reviewers and authors, or even among disparate peers in an open public-review system? Extensive discourse will no doubt improve the paper. On the other hand, lengthy conversations can have diminishing returns (and delay publication). The publishing world requires more data before we can begin to improve the current peer-review process. In the scientific spirit of experimentation, some journals (Biology Direct, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Electronic Transactions in Artificial Intelligence, to name a few) have adopted open peer-review systems in which the identities of authors and reviewers are disclosed to all participants. Nature is trying a variation on this theme by running a side-by10.1021/cb6002866 CCC: $33.50 Published online July 21, 2006 © 2006 by American Chemical Society
www.acschemicalbiology.org
VOL.1 NO.6 • ACS CHEMICAL BIOLOGY
325
Editor’s
LETTER side experiment with traditional peer review and open peer commentary on a select number of papers. Authors can choose to participate in the experiment or have their paper reviewed through traditional SBPR. Later this year, the Public Library of Science (PLoS) will launch PLoS ONE, its experiment in open peer review. Will scientists be willing to commit time to engage in a discourse on the web versus writing a single set of comments? Will technically deficient papers be weeded out quickly so that reviewers’ time won’t be wasted? If the paper is posted on a public website before publication, what measures will be taken to prevent plagiarism or outright theft of intellectual property? If an author excludes an individual as a reviewer, how will the journal honor this request? The data from these open peer-review experiments will be telling. Here at ACS CB, we’ve been conducting a behind-the-scenes experiment with open editor discussions. As our readers can see, we receive papers that run the gamut of organic chemistry to cell biology. How do the editors decide what is appropriate for the journal? We use the collective expertise of the seven members of our Board of Editors and the staff editors to prescreen manuscripts. This process is an online discussion that takes 1–3 days and normally involves at least three editors. It is not a formal review but simply a prescreen to establish the suitability of a paper for the journal, determine whether it should be reviewed, and identify appropriate reviewers. We have considered whether a similar discussion forum among the chosen reviewers would enhance our review process. After the paper returns from review (usually 2–3 weeks), the editors revisit these discussions, this time with reviewer comments in hand. We integrate the expertise of reviewers and the editors to make a decision within 2–4 days. This synthesis during the review process would have been impractical before the Internet but is now relatively straightforward. The jury is still out on how peer review will evolve, but it is clear that it will. Please email us with your comments and suggestions. Should ACS CB change its peer-review process? If so, how? Go to our WIKI (free and open to all scientists), and add your opinion to the Experimenting with Peer Review discussion. Thanks for your input.
Evelyn Jabri Executive Editor
1. Kronick, D. A. (1990) Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism, JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 263, 1321–1322.
326
VOL.1 NO.6 • 325–326 • 2006
www.acschemicalbiology.org
