Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for Course Correction?

With 2014 upon us, I wish good health and a productive year to all JHC readers, authors, reviewers, editors and our staff. For some, 2013 was a tough year, with choppy waters of funding uncertainties to navigate. Let us hope for more stable and predictable times ahead. The world of science publishing is also changing rapidly. More journals have come onto the scene, and for some unfortunately, the raison d’être is profit from the Open Access (OA) revolution. I wonder how many JHC contributors have, like me in 2013, been invited to join numerous editorial boards. Any thoughts that this reflects recognition for work well done in the past quickly evaporate when it is clear that I have been invited onto editorial boards of journals in fields where I have absolutely no expertise! Of course, calls for papers in all these journals are commonplace too. It is salutary to realize that some journals, called “predatory” in some quarters, are simply prepared to publish almost anything for a substantial fee. What of the peer review process?

Peer review is under scrutiny again, as it is from time to time. Even the Economist has been devoting column inches recently to the notion that a significant proportion of peer-reviewed studies cannot be reproduced. This, surely, is one in the eye for pre-publication peer review? Clearly those journals populating their editorial boards with non-experts are doing the peer review process no favors. In fact, this suggests two things: first, peer review should be as skilled as possible; and second, that confirmation or even refutation of previously published data is an important component of the scientific process. There are, clearly, those who believe that the era of anonymous peer review before publication is, or should be, over. Some journals now advocate a policy of “light touch” peer review, followed by the possibility of post-publication peer review on-line. This mostly concerns journals that are completely open access. However, my visits to some of the papers published in this way show very few comments added after publication. Of around 70 papers in one sub-category of an on-line journal of large size, published over several years, just one comment of two lines concerning a missing control had been appended. In three other cases, a short and inconsequential comment had been added by the journal board itself. Not a high response rate.

However, undaunted, PubMed Commons has been launched, at least in trial format (as of October 2013). This allows anyone with an account to add comments to any article that is lodged with PubMed. This therefore includes JHC content. It will be interesting to see how this feature evolves. Naturally, the aim is constructive discourse and the rules make clear what constitutes unacceptable activity, which may be removed. The question is whether added comments will be useful or subject to misuse and, indeed, if this commentary is “peer” reviewed. Will comments be applied to papers by contributors with real expertise in the area? In addition, will authors of papers that are listed in PubMed check regularly to see who is attaching comments and respond? I have to confess that I am not sure this will be a high priority for me.

The traditional anonymous pre-publication peer review process has a considerable pedigree. I hope that I am not a Luddite; but, while not perfect, for me it is the least worst process, as it is for grant proposals. It might be valuable to describe how JHC undertakes its review process. Once manuscripts are entered into the system and checked for completeness, they come to me. At least one editor reviews all submissions, and in the majority of cases, each manuscript is then sent to a Monitoring Editor with relevant expertise. In some cases, manuscripts are not sent to a Monitoring Editor where, for example, the scope of the manuscript lies outside that of JHC and the work should be directed to a more relevant journal. In these cases, the review process is terminated to save the authors’ and reviewers’ time. On receiving manuscripts, the Monitoring Editors also review the submission and select two or three reviewers with appropriate expertise. At JHC, our Editors and most of our reviewers have many years of relevant experience of research publication and have often published in JHC and similar journals. When reviews are returned, the Monitoring Editor considers the primary reviews and renders a decision that includes his or her own views on the manuscript. Sometimes there is discrepancy between reviewers and an additional review may be sought. The Monitoring Editor then returns all reviews to me for a final decision. It is my job, and that of the Monitoring Editors, to ensure that the process has been fair, even-handed and of a high caliber. With everyone doing his or her job well, there are checks and balances in the system, and of course authors are free to contest points raised in the review process.

We have considered a process whereby reviewers’ names are attached to reviews, but this may have undesirable consequences for some reviewers; I am not convinced this is the way forward. Likewise, a meaningful process of post-publication review relies on enthusiastic, skilled contributors. If serious deficiencies are noted, will the paper be withdrawn or remain in the literature? How will authors of controversial papers decide whether the critiques are balanced and sufficiently persuasive that they might seek retraction?

We are, regrettably, in a publish-or-perish environment. Investigators’ careers and promotions can depend on publications, particularly in “high impact” journals. This can create enormous pressure for authors. Moreover, high-end journals generally do not publish confirmatory studies; this creates incentives for scientists not to spend time on such activities. At JHC, we subscribe to the DORA principles (1); journal impact factors can be misleading, manipulated and sometimes misused. What matters is the contribution to the field, and one measure of that is how often an article is cited by others, regardless of where it is published. Journals, such as JHC, have an important part to play in this scientific endeavor.

Therefore, as a New Year gets underway, with a tradition of over 60 years, JHC remains committed to standards of high quality in review and publication. We shall continue to deliver fast, fair and knowledgeable reviews of submitted manuscripts. Our breadth of coverage will remain wide, encompassing new insights in cell and tissue biology, development, disease and relevant techniques such as imaging. Moreover, JHC will publish articles that confirm and extend previous work, or even refute published data. This is a vital aspect of self-correction, and is essential for progress in science. Along with generous page limits and free color, in these times of financial constraint, we offer low publication costs and, where requested, highly competitive open access fees. We look forward to your research articles, reviews and perspectives in 2014 and beyond.