Blog: Scientists are Humans: "Kinder Peer Review"

[Andy]

This is a guest post by Dr Rebecca Kirk, Executive Editor, Nature Partner Journals

Every day, thousands of scientists around the world donate their spare hours as peer reviewers to help colleagues (and competitors!) improve their work. But unkindness does exist too (as you can see from the emergence of Facebook groups such as Reviewer 2 Must Be Stopped…) and we all have a role to play in making it a kinder, more-productive process. As an editor, I have seen the full gamut of reviews, from unhelpful one-liners, through useful assessment of the work that highlights deficits and provides solutions to help the authors transform their paper, to unrealistic demands that go far beyond the scope of the paper under scrutiny.

There is a lot of comment out there on what makes a good scientific review, but what basic tenets of peer review could we agree to sign up to if we all wanted to make science a kinder place? Importantly, all parties involved in peer review need to remember that there are people behind the science. A publication is the outcome of hard work and time away from loved ones or much-loved leisure pursuits; for some, there are hopes, dreams and grants at stake. Fair, fast, thorough and impartial assessment is needed to ensure the wheels of research keep spinning.

https://scientistsarehumans.com/2018/11/08/kinder-peer-review/

 

[Invisible Woman]

Surely, this feeds into the argument for more openness?

If a reviewer just gives a one liner, is obviously biased, being dismissive for the sake if it, then having open reviews would soon out a stop to that.

 

[John Mac]

Importantly, all parties involved in peer review need to remember that there are people behind the science. A publication is the outcome of hard work and time away from loved ones or much-loved leisure pursuits; for some, there are hopes, dreams and grants at stake.

Either the science is right or it isn't. It's not a popularity contest.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

It sounds a bit like saying 'if only you reviewers were a bit nicer Nature would make more money with less hassle.'

 

[WillowJ]

One of the comments points to this article, which says that people may still have something to say about a paper outside their field of expertise
https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-018-1574-8

I agree. It doesn’t take a “CFS” specialist to know that PACE, MAGENTA, and so on, are badly done.

It could benefit some of our M.E. studies to have reviews by cardiology, hematology, and other disciplines that could be related, but don’t often study the disease.