Improvements on the Scientific Review Process?

myc asks: "A recent story has discussed the pros and cons of the publishing end of scientific literature, but what about the review end? I work in biology and recently have run into a slew of frustrations trying to get my work published. For instance, one really frustrating thing is, because of the need to keep the reviewers' identify confidential, communication between authors and reviewers is essentially one-way via the editorial office. When the reviewers encounter something that might be confusing to them in the manuscript, they take it as a negative, when really a very simple explanation from the authors would clear it up. After all, its the scientific content, not 1337 wr171ng skillz that is being reviewed. What are some of the frustrations you have come across when trying to publish your work, and have you any ideas on how to improve on the review process?"

"Another really frustrating point is many people feel that some papers are accepted on the basis of the reputation of the senior author and not purely on scientific merit (i.e., the burden of proof is lessened for established scientists), while the opposite is true for younger investigators (i.e., the burden of proof for novel findings may be higher, sometimes unreasonably so). One's scientific pedigree also helps, to a certain extent (if you trained with a big name, you are more likely to get published).

In the examples above, 2-way communication via anonymous email between the authors and reviewers might solve this particular problem; also, I think that if the identities of the reviewers are protected, why not the authors? Perhaps a solution to my second issue would be to have the author's names hidden from the reviewers until after the review process is complete."

Comments

Improvements on the slashdot review process?

[j1m 5n0w]

I post to slashdot and recently have run into a slew of frustrations trying to get my posts modded up. For instance, one really frustrating thing is, moderators slap me with a -1 when they encounter something that might be confusing to them in the post. They take it as a negative, when really a very simple follow up post from the author would clear it up. After all, its the revevance of the content, not 1337 3ngr15h skillz that is being moderated.

What are some of the frustrations you have come across when posting to slashdot, and have you any ideas on how to improve on the moderation process?

Another really frustrating point is many people feel that some posts get an automatic +2 on the basis excellent karma, not purely on the merit of the post itself (i.e., the burden of originality is lessened for established slashdotters), while the opposite is true for posters with bad karma or a high account number (i.e., the burden of proof for creative posts may be higher, sometimes unreasonably so).

One's list of friends and fans also helps, to a certain extent (if you are a friend of a slashdot Rock Star, you are more likely to get modded up).

In the examples above, a follow-up anonymous coward post by the reviewer might solve this particular problem (lest the reviewer lose the ability to moderate by posting with his regular account); also, I think that if the identities of the moderators are protected, why not the authors? Perhaps a solution to my second issue would be to have the author's names hidden from anyone with mod points (as in metamoderation).

-jim