Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

korendovych · 08.02.2008 05:46:17

Editorial

Nature 451, 605-606 (7 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/451605b; Published online 6 February 2008

Working double-blind

Double-blind peer review, in which both authors and referees are anonymous, is apparently much revered, if not much practised. The Publishing Research Consortium (PRC) has assessed attitudes towards peer review among 3,000 academics in an international survey across the sciences and humanities. The results, released last month1, strongly affirm the value of peer review. They also highlight that 71% have confidence in double-blind peer review and that 56% prefer it to other forms of review. Support is highest with those who have experienced it (the humanities and social sciences) or where it is perceived to do the most good (among female authors). The least enthusiastic group is editors. So is it time for editors, and those at Nature in particular, to reconsider their position?

If referees know the authors' identities, it may leave the latter vulnerable to biases about them or their previous work, their gender, their nationality or their being new to an area of research. But the PRC survey supports the contention of Nature and others that identifying authors stimulates referees to ask appropriate questions (for example, differentiating between a muddy technical explanation and poor experimental technique). Knowing author identities also makes it easier to compare the new manuscript with the authors' previously published work, to ensure that a true advance is being reported. And knowing rather than guessing the identities of authors encourages reviewers to raise potential conflicts of interest to the editors.

Is there evidence that double-blind peer review presents a better alternative? It would do so if it generated more constructive comments in the minds of editors and authors, or if the identity of authors were truly protected, or if biases were reduced. So far, the jury is out. Although at least one study in the biomedical literature has suggested that double-blind peer review increases the quality of reviews, a larger study of seven medical journals2, 3 indicated that neither authors nor editors found significant difference in the quality of comments when both referees and authors were blinded. Referees could identify at least one of the authors on about 40% of the papers, undermining the raison d'être for double-blinding. The editors at the Public Library of Science abandoned double-blind peer review because too few requested it and authors were too readily identified.

The one bright light in favour of double-blind peer review is the measured reduction in bias against authors with female first names (shown in numerous studies, such as ref. 4). This suggests that authors submitting papers to traditionally minded journals should include the given names of authors only on the final, published version.

The double-blind approach is predicated on a culture in which manuscripts-in-progress are kept secret. This is true for the most part in the life sciences. But some physical sciences, such as high-energy physics, share preprints extensively through arXiv, an online repository. Thus, double-blind peer review is at odds with another 'force for good' in the academic world: the open sharing of information. The PRC survey found that highly competitive fields (such as neuroscience) or those with larger commercial or applied interests (such as materials science and chemical engineering) were the most enthusiastic about double-blinding, whereas fields with more of a tradition for openness (astronomy and mathematics) were decidedly less supportive.

Where does this leave journals? Editors have the responsibility to provide a neutral bridge between referees and authors and so may help to better shield authors from bias. Easily said! The evidence of the PRC survey suggests little faith in that impartiality, but editors — certainly at Nature and its related journals — take that responsibility seriously.

Nature's policies over the years have generally moved towards greater transparency. Coupling that with the lack of evidence that double-anonymity is beneficial makes this journal resistant to adopting it as the default refereeing policy any time soon. But many of our readers are referees as well as authors. We welcome their views on author anonymity from both vantage points. To that end, this Editorial will be posted for comment at blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/02/w … blind.html.

References

Publishing Research Consortium Peer Review in Scholarly Journals (Mark Ware Consulting, Bristol, 2008); available at www.publishingresearch.net/PeerReview.htm

Justice, A. C. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 240–242 (1998).

Cho, M. K. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 243–245 (1998).

Budden, A. E. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 4–6 (2008).

korendovych · 21.02.2008 05:26:53

C&N News тоже озаботился этой проблемой

cenpeerreview.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/ … st/#more-8

korendovych · 29.04.2008 20:41:18

Science 21 March 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5870, p. 1601
DOI: 10.1126/science.319.5870.1601a

NEWS OF THE WEEK
PEER REVIEW:
Pfizer Denied Access to Journals' Files
Jocelyn Kaiser

A federal judge in Chicago last week denied a company's efforts to obtain confidential peer-review documents about arthritis drugs it manufactured. The company, Pfizer, sued for files from three major medical journals. It lost against two in Illinois and is waiting for a decision in Massachusetts on the third.

Pfizer's actions stem from a lawsuit in which the company was sued by patients who took the drugs Bextra and Celebrex, which have been linked to serious side effects. In January, Pfizer filed a motion in Massachusetts to force the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) to comply with subpoenas for peer-review documents from 11 studies the journal had published on the drugs. Pfizer also sued in Illinois to get peer reviews from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the Archives of Internal Medicine, which together had also published 11 studies on the drugs. Pfizer said data from accepted and rejected studies could be useful for its defense.
Attorneys for the three journals argued that releasing confidential reviews would compromise the anonymity of peer review. [The outgoing editor-in-chief of Science, Donald Kennedy, filed an affidavit supporting NEJM's position (Science, 22 February, p. 1009)]. In an affidavit, JAMA Editor-in- Chief Catherine DeAngelis argued that if the courts routinely allowed such subpoenas, it could result in a "severe decline" in the number of peer reviewers and affect the journals' ability to "properly discharge their mission to advance the betterment of public health."

The U.S. court in Chicago agreed with DeAngelis. "Although her statements are quite dramatic, it is not unreasonable to believe that compelling production of peer review documents would compromise the process," wrote Judge Arlander Keys. The court also found that Pfizer had not adequately explained how unpublished information could help it defend itself. Keys's conclusion: "Whatever probative value the subpoenaed documents and information may have is outweighed by the burden and harm" to the journals.

"We're delighted," says DeAngelis. "If you interfere with the process and the confidentiality, you might as well pack it up and go home."

A handful of such cases have come up before, such as a 1994 subpoena of NEJM seeking peer-review comments as part of breast-implant litigation. Journals have usually prevailed, but the judge in each case must weigh the arguments anew, notes Debra Parrish, an attorney in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who specializes in science law. The JAMA decision "is important," she says.

The NEJM case appears to be winding down as well: At a hearing last week, Pfizer narrowed its request to the peer-review comments returned to authors, according to NEJM's Boston attorney, Paul Shaw. He expects a decision within days.

zaitsev · 29.04.2008 21:44:27

Это для нас так далеко. Тут на последнем факультетском совете снова вернулись к проблеме публикации в украинских журналах. Некоторые члены совета заявили, что на заседании НАНУ рассматривался этот вопрос и решено было поддерживать Украинские журналы, публикуя в них хорошие статьи а всякие там импакт факторы нам не указ.
О том, как рецензируются статьи в Украинских журналах всем хорошо известно.
Вспомнил,что как то, для получения одной моей студенткой стипендии Сороса, ей нехватало количества статей. Она принесла мне черновик статьи (где были просто результаты без какаго либо их обсуждения и анализа) и попросила отправить в УХЖ, чтобы "стать в очередь". Как известно статья в УХЖ выходит не быстрее чем за 1.5 года. Послать я послал (предупредив, что это черновик и нужна тольок справка о том, что статью взяли), а потом и забыл. Так статья и вышла из печати в виде "черновика".
А вы говорите двухстороннее закрытое рецензиование.

korendovych · 30.04.2008 01:47:46

более близкий нашим реалиям пример

Science 18 April 2008:
Vol. 320. no. 5874, pp. 304 - 305
DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5874.304a

NEWS OF THE WEEK
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING:
Croatian Editors Fight With Medical School Over Journal's Fate
Gretchen Vogel

At an international meeting on research integrity last fall, Ana Marušić spoke on the problems facing small journals. Since then, the anatomy professor has many more stories to tell. She and her husband, Matko Marušić, co-editors-in-chief of the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ), are at the center of a controversy that threatens their jobs and, observers say, the journal's independence and its example of quality scientific publishing in countries outside the scientific mainstream.

The editors--both professors at the University of Zagreb Medical School, which, along with three other Croatian medical schools owns the journal--have faced charges of plagiarism and defaming the university. The Marušićs say they are being targeted for their insistence on research ethics and for bringing to light corruption and plagiarism in the Croatian medical community. Their critics, primarily academics at the same school, charge that it's the editors who are behaving unethically and destroying the trust essential for the journal's operation.

Founded in 1991, CMJ was conceived as a forum for doctors ensnared in the country's civil war to communicate to the outside world. Non-Croatian authors were also welcome. From the beginning, says Ana Marušić, the goal was to educate scientists from developing countries on how to communicate their work better--primarily in English. Available for free online, the journal is listed in major citation indexes. Ana Marušić is currently president of the Council of Science Editors, an international organization of journal editors, and also headed the World Association of Medical Editors. "Considering the size of the country and the resources available, they really hit the ground running," says Mary Scheetz, an expert in research ethics and scientific publishing at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. "Their journal became respected."

That respect has perhaps contributed to the editors' problems. In Croatia, professors must publish at least five papers in journals indexed in Current Contents to receive promotions. Because CMJ is the only Croatian journal listed in Current Contents, a rejection can thwart careers. In part because of that, says Davor Solter, director emeritus at the Max Planck Institute of Immunobiology in Freiburg, Germany, and a member of CMJ's advisory board, the Marušićs "have a lot of friends outside Croatia and a lot of enemies inside Croatia."
The Marušićs say their troubles started in 2001 when the journal rejected a paper by a Zagreb colleague, based on unfavorable reviews. They claim their problems worsened after a September 2006 commentary in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) detailed two examples of plagiarism by Asim Kurjak, a prominent gynecologist at the University of Zagreb. Ana Marušić knew the commentary's author, Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library in Oxford, U.K., through publishing circles, and she says that Kurjak and others accused the couple of prompting the BMJ article. Chalmers says a chance conversation with a Norwegian researcher prompted him. He says he checked some of the facts with another Croatian scientist but deliberately avoided mentioning it to the Marušićs.

After pressure from the Croatian press, Nada Čikeš, dean of the Zagreb medical school, referred the Kurjak matter to the school's Court of Honor. In October, it found that Kurjak had behaved unethically, but because he had retired a month earlier, the court did not punish him. About the same time, Čikeš also asked the body to look into plagiarism charges involving Ana Marušić.

In May 2006, an anonymous letter to Croatian science ministry and university officials said that significant portions of a 2002 anatomy textbook co-authored by Ana Marušić were identical to passages in an American textbook. This month, the Court of Honor issued a "public warning" to Ana Marušić. It found her "responsible for the fact that the textbook … without providing the source and authors, copied and translated English text."
Ana Marušić does not dispute the lack of acknowledgement but says she relied on her publisher to seek the necessary permission; the publisher said it tried several times before deciding the American publishers did not object. "It was definitely a mistake" not to credit the source textbook, she says.

Matko Marušić has also run afoul of university authorities. Even his supporters say the editor is an intense person whose energy and stubbornness can rankle. Last week, a disciplinary hearing was held to decide whether comments he made to a newspaper about corruption in the Croatian scientific community defamed the university. As part of that process, the committee asked three university psychiatrists for their opinion of Matko Marušić's public comments and his correspondence. One of them told Science that he declined to cooperate, but Matko wrote to the American Psychiatric Association protesting the school's request.

CMJ's owners, the deans of Croatia's four medical schools, are now considering a proposal by Čikeš to put the journal under their direct control instead of the current eight-member management board. Čikeš has also proposed that CMJ's editor-in-chief be rehired and that anyone who had been reprimanded by his or her university should be disqualified. Čikeš says the changes would bring the journal in line with governance standards recommended by the World Association of Medical Editors. The Marušićs have never been formally evaluated or elected to their positions, she says. She does acknowledge their accomplishments. "I am happy and proud that we have such a good journal," she says. However, she says, the ongoing disputes have gotten out of hand. "The whole thing is immobilizing parts of the institution."

Solter is dismayed by the fight. Given the relative success of the journal, the disputes seem like a waste of time and energy, Solter says: "When all is said and done, they made the journal what it is. … To get that done, maybe you have to be a bit obnoxious. The journal and its editors should be left alone to do their work."

Форум хімфаку КНУ

Оголошення

#1 08.02.2008 05:46:17

Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

#2 21.02.2008 05:26:53

Re: Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

#3 29.04.2008 20:41:18

Re: Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

#4 29.04.2008 21:44:27

Re: Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

#5 30.04.2008 01:47:46

Re: Should there be author anonymity in peer review?

Низ форуму