Robert J. Marks: Time to change the peer review system

ET - I'll send a paper on to an associate editor if I think it's interesting enough, and that doesn't require careful reading. With rejections, they are often clear, but I make sure I do do due diligence to check that my thinking is supported. But this level of care is much less than is needed for a proper review. There are usually lots of issues that can only be seen by specialists in the specific area of the paper, so I expect reviewers to read the manuscript with that level of care. My time is limited, so I have to ration it. This means that if I don't have to carefully read a submission to be able to reach a decision, I won't. If I'm not sure, I'll read more carefully. Bob O'H

What kind of editor doesn't carefully read the papers they are approving or rejecting? Thanks to Bob for pointing out more problems with peer-review. ET

Polistra @ 5 -

Journals with good editors are enough. A scientifically literate editor can always spot major problems with method or logic.

As a journal editor, I'd disagree. partly because there can be problems that needs a specialist to uncover, and also because we don't have the time to carefully read papers. I'd also acknowledge that editors do often spot problems. Another point is that most papers are improved by the review process - small issues can be corrected or clarified, and sometimes the whole paper can be changed to make it clearer. Bob O'H

Adding: The major journals get BIG subscription prices on the basis that you're paying for selectivity. The editors palm off their selective work onto the peer reviewers who aren't paid. This is at least chintzy if not quite fraudulent. polistra

The whole setup is unnecessary. Journals with good editors are enough. A scientifically literate editor can always spot major problems with method or logic. Details can be handled by correspondence or blog-style comments on the articles. polistra

It is very telling that there aren't any peer-reviewed papers that support blind watchmaker evolution, ie unguided evolution/ evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Why is that? Why is unguided evolution devoid of science and yet still considered to be scientific? ET

T

You probably wouldn’t say it, but I will: would BIO-Complexity be a case in point?

Perish the thought. :) Ed George

Ed George: "There has also been a proliferation of journals created in an attempt to provide credibility to a scientific view that is questionable, at best. These can most easily be identified by the fact that the authors of most of the papers published also belong to the editorial board of the journal." You probably wouldn't say it, but I will: would BIO-Complexity be a case in point? timothya

A few decades ago the number of journals in any field was small, costly to produce and costly for libraries to purchase. As such, there was pressure placed on the journals to ensure that the papers it published were of high quality. The internet, however, has changed this. Today there are a large number of journals competing for papers. I have only published a couple papers in the last couple years but not a week goes by when I don’t receive an email from a journal asking me to submit a paper. There has also been a proliferation of journals created in an attempt to provide credibility to a scientific view that is questionable, at best. These can most easily be identified by the fact that the authors of most of the papers published also belong to the editorial board of the journal. Ed George