Neuroscience is multidisciplinary by nature. To understand the mind and brain, we need to draw on biology, psychology, physics, philosophy, computer science, and numerous other disciplines. Such interdisciplinarity opens potential routes for exploration that makes the field fascinating to work in. It drives innovation and creativity by promoting unique combinations of ideas from different fields.
When it comes to the review process, however, multidisciplinarity can be a challenge. The problem is that different fields abide by different norms, adopt vastly different philosophies, and lack a common language. Different standards of assessment can lead to evaluation bias when the reviewer and author have trained in different fields. For example, in some fields, controlled experiments that isolate factors of interest in a laboratory setting are a preferred approach. In other fields, this approach is considered artificial and uninformative. Instead, the preference is for real-life observations. By contrast, researchers in fields where controlled experiments are favored tend to consider real-life data limited, as it cannot reveal causal mechanisms. The truth, of course, is that both methods are crucial for scientific advancement.
It is our job at Science Advances to ensure that high-quality, multidisciplinary research is not penalized. We have a few tools at our disposal that can help promote this goal. The first is cross-review. Asking reviewers from different fields to comment on each other’s reviews can be helpful for identifying field specific biases. Second, it is common for one of our neuroscience deputy editors to oversee a submission together with an associated editor from a different section, such as the section on Social and Interdisciplinary Sciences and Public Health or the section on Biomedicine and Life Sciences.
While being mindful of evaluation bias (of any kind) is important when making editorial decisions and assessing reviews, it is not enough. To identify and correct problems in the editorial process, we need to include authors in the loop.
One of my goals as the new neuroscience section editor of Science Advances is to ease communication between reviewers, editors, and authors. As a neuroscience professor, I have been an author for more years than an editor. I have found that the review process, on balance, elevates my research and improves the paper that is eventually published. Still, there are times when a reviewer or editor is mistaken or misguided. When you believe that this is the case, we ask you to reach out to the editor. If a reviewer makes an illogical request, let us know. We may not always agree, but as long as the communication is respectful, it is welcome.
Collaboration across disciplines has been instrumental in pushing the boundaries of neuroscience knowledge and addressing complex questions about the brain. This trend is only strengthening with modern technological advances such as machine-brain interfaces and the use of machine learning and large language models in neuroscience research. Science Advances aims to be a home for this and other interdisciplinary research while maintaining scientific rigor and integrity in the articles that we publish.