From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:17:41 +0400
Hi All
One of the advantages is to authors who sometimes have to toe the line
(because reviewers seem to have the final say, and editors appear
loath to cross the reviewers). As a result, things that authors feel
should have been said are removed in order just to get the paper
published. This way, authors can show their original intentions.
BTW - A few other journals have been making earlier drafts of papers
available for some years already.
Regards, Ken
Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
On 6 April 2012 16:59, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Laval Hunsucker <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:21:09 -0700
>
> At first glance, this pilot may indeed look like something appropriate
> to a, in Elsevier's words, "project aimed at improving the article
> value in all areas of its presentation, content, and context". But,
> thinking it over, I began to have my doubts. To what extent is such
> "review report transparency" really something that journal readers or
> authors or reviewers or editors, themselves, are inclined to want to
> see implemented, and something from which they and the scientific
> communication system will actually significantly benefit?
>
> I do read and use lots of articles from Elsevier journals for my own
> purposes, and have for a pretty long time, though admittedly not in
> the area of agricultural and forestry ecology, but can't recall ever
> regretting that I didn't have access to the pre-review version of an
> article or to the reviewer's report, and don't think it ever actually
> occurred to me that such access would result in "improving the article
> value" in terms of content and context, or that the presentation was
> somehow unsatisfactory without those elements. Surely in certain cases
> they might well have improved the article value for me somewhat, but
> in most I would guess that their publication would just have amounted
> to useless effort and wasted space. What is it, after all, that we've
> actually been missing all this time?
>
> Numerous are indeed the questions that come immediately to the mind of
> a reader of this rather cursory press announcement. Obvious questions,
> perhaps.
>
> What does it mean exactly that Elsevier is in this case 'testing transparency'?
>
> And will there also be transparency concerning the grounds on which
> the pilot will eventually have been judged to be "successful" or
> otherwise?
>
> Who will be judging whether or not success is achieved? -- will the
> disciplinary community, or even all readers,
> be able to play a role?
>
> Further on down, beyond the part which was quoted by Ann, I now read :
> "Review reports will only be published if they meet certain quality
> standards." Does this mean in the pilot phase, or does this indicate
> the intended procedure after official implementation, or both? In any
> case, how does this relate with Tanke's statement that "Making the
> reviews visible to all readers of the article will ultimately *lead
> to* [my emphasis] higher quality review reports"?
>
> Also in any case : Will these standards (presumably established, and
> to be applied, in the first instance, by A&FM's editor? -- or by
> Elsevier ?) also be made clear to the outside world, so that also the
> readers can judge what is going on?
>
> To what extent will they ( later ) vary according to participating discipline?
>
> And in fact, should an article even be published at all if (or so long
> as) the review report is of substandard quality? If the review report
> is in some instances omitted as implied, isn't this then a signal to
> the reader that the contribution as published is potentially of lower
> quality, since the reviewer's performance was judged to be
> qualitatively substandard? Isn't it much better, *and* more
> transparent, to include review reports with all articles -- or
> otherwise with none, as now?
>
> Or, so far from it being ( just ) a matter of quality, is there
> perchance (also) an idea here that a journal might less easily attract
> (enough) authors if those authors don't have the possibility to opt
> out of having published, besides the final version of their
> contribution, also their "originally submitted manuscript" (which
> likewise is to be published as part of this scheme, according to the
> full announcement) and the judgments passed on it by one or more
> referees? Is this not a pragmatic factor of some significance?
>
> Insisting on publication of review reports and original manuscripts
> for all articles would lose a journal some potential authors, I would
> think, but shouldn't it also have the overall effect of improving the
> quality of the authors who submit, and of their initial submissions?
> The announcement emphasizes the objective of improving the quality of
> reviewers and of their reports, but has nothing to say about the
> quality of submissions. ( Note, too, that reviewers will -- oddly ? --
> be allowed to opt out of being identified, the authors naturally not.)
> And, is a report which the reviewer knows will be made openly
> available certain, or likely, to be as effective as one which he knows
> will only be seen by the editor and (anonymously ) by the author ?
>
> Beyond that: What about the author's written responses to review
> reports -- also now unavailable to readers (and often even to
> reviewers?). Their availability would seem essential if the reader is
> properly to understand the relationship of the originally submitted
> manuscript to the version of record and if Elsevier's objective is
> indeed, to use the words of Dr. Lee, to "provide context to the
> article by giving multiple perspectives on the quality of the study".
> I saw nothing here about publishing
> those author's responses as well.
>
> Note, also, that in the case of the particular journal being used for
> this pilot, submitting authors themselves are, at least at this point,
> required also to submit names of potential reviewers, and are
> furthermore allowed to name persons whom they "do not want to review
> [their] manuscript". How does that fit in with goals such as "giving
> multiple perspectives on the quality of the study" and enhancing peer
> review quality?
>
> As I said: numerous questions, and perhaps obvious questions. But I'd
> for one be quite interested to hear any further comments anyone might
> wish to make on such matters.
>
> Nonetheless : interesting that Elsevier has decided to try this out
> and, like Ann, I look forward to some eventual follow-through and
> evaluation.
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 13:34:56 -0400
> >
> > This will be interesting to follow. Hope there will be a report at
> > the end, that we can read.
> >
> > ***************
> >
> > Review Reports Published With Articles Should Enhance Peer Review Quality
> >
> > Elsevier, a world-leading provider of scientific, technical, and
> > medical information products and services, has launched a pilot
> > project aimed at improving the quality of peer review. Review reports
> > for articles in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology will be published
> > alongside the article on SciVerse ScienceDirect. The pilot will last
> > until the end of 2012. If successful, the initiative will also be
> > applied to other Elsevier journals.....
> >
> > http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2012/04/02/elsevier-tests-peer-review-report-transparency/
|
