[Insight-developers] Reviewing Peer Review -- Alberts et al. 321 (5885): 15 -- Science

[Luis Ibanez]

Science 4 July 2008:
Vol. 321. no. 5885, p. 15
DOI: 10.1126/science.1162115

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/321/5885/15

Editorial

"Reviewing Peer Review"
Bruce Alberts, Brooks Hanson, Katrina L. Kelner


<quote>

The way scientists and research institutions are evaluated also needs
revision. An inappropriately high value is placed on publication in
certain journals. Increased competition for the limited slots in these
preferred journals exacerbates the natural aggravations of peer review
experienced by authors. Efforts like the Faculty of 1000, where experts
scan a large set of biology journals and select the best contributions
wherever published, can be very helpful. Such efforts can reduce the
pressures that many group leaders feel from young scientists, who often
place undue emphasis on publishing in a few high-profile journals--where
the criteria used for evaluation may not match their research, no matter
how valuable the contribution.

Finally, and perhaps most important, authors, reviewers, and journal
editors should keep in mind the ultimate goal of scholarly scientific
publishing to advance our understanding of the natural world.
Competition among labs and personal striving for excellence are forces
that can be harnessed to accelerate our progress. But in excess these
factors can be impediments. The scientific community must collectively
ensure that the peer review process continues to serve the loftier goals
of our enterprise, which ultimately benefits us all.

</quote>