Image: Deadline, by geralt CC 0 via pixabay.com.
Warning: I’m a bit grumpy today.
I’m back tilting at one of my favourite windmills today: requests for manuscript reviews with unreasonably short deadlines. I’ve explained elsewhere that one should expect the process of peer review to take a while. Journals would love to compress the process by reducing the time the manuscript spends on the reviewer’s desk – and so they ask for reviews to be returned in 2 weeks, or in 10 days, or less. As a reviewer, I don’t play this game any more: I simply refuse all requests with deadlines shorter than 3 weeks.
I’ve asked a few editors and journal offices why they give such short deadlines, and they give two kinds of answers: one outcome-based, and one process-based. Continue reading
Image: “Waiting”, Edgar Degas, circa 1882 (pastel on paper). Collection of the Getty Center, Los Angeles. Public domain.
I’m sure it’s happened to you. It’s happened to me. With excitement, you punch the “submit” button, and celebrate your manuscript being off your desk and into peer review. And then you wait. And wait. And you wait some more. Sometimes, it feels like you’re waiting forever. When that happens, is it appropriate to e-mail the journal office to ask what’s holding things up? And if so, how long should you wait? Continue reading
Warning: another grumpy one
I’m seeing it more and more: requests to review manuscripts with ludicrously short deadlines. Sometimes 10 days, sometimes 7, sometimes one week (5 business days). And I see editors on Twitter bragging about a paper they’ve shepherd through the entire review process in 5 days, or a week, or two weeks. I want all this to stop. Continue reading
Photo: Lazy red panda CC 0 via pxhere.com
I’ve just published a paper that had some trouble getting through peer review. Nothing terribly unusual about that, of course, and the paper is better for its birthing pains. But one reviewer comment (made independently, actually, by several different reviewers) really bugged me. It revealed some fuzzy thinking that’s all too common amongst ecologists, having to do with the value of quick-and-dirty methods. Quick-and-dirty methods deserve more respect. I’ll explain using my particular paper as an example, first, and then provide a general analysis. Continue reading
Peer review is a dumpster fire, right? At least, that’s what I hear – and there’s a reason for that.
Last month, I got reviews back on my latest paper. Opening that particular email always makes me both excited and depressed, and this one ran true to form: a nicely complimentary opening from the editor and Reviewer 1 – followed by several pages of detailed critiques from Reviewer 2 – and Reviewer 3 – and, believe it or not, Reviewer 4. Continue reading
Image: Coins by KMR Photography CC BY 2.0
Reviewers, we all tell each other to remember, are unpaid. Sometimes we’re being scandalized about it, as in “Megapublisher X is making unconscionable profits on the back of unpaid reviewers”. Other times we’re being laudatory, as in “We should be grateful to reviewers for all the help they give us, since they’re working for us without pay”. I’ve said versions of the latter many times: for example, in The Scientist’s Guide to Writing, in this older post, and more recently and more explicitly in this post. But the thing is, it (mostly) isn’t true. We should probably stop saying it. Continue reading
I recently learned about Peer Community In (PCI), a new system for reviewing and recommending preprints. I’m really intrigued. It’s true that I’m an old fuddy-duddy who’s on record as saying that we often exaggerate the problems with the status quo, and as not liking to think outside the box. And yet there are good reasons to think it might be good to have other ways beyond traditional journals to disseminate science. We should experiment with a variety of new systems, and PCI seems like one well worth exploring. Read on to learn more!
What follows is a guest post by Denis Bourguet (email@example.com), Benoit Facon (firstname.lastname@example.org), Thomas Guillemaud (email@example.com), and Ruth Hufbauer (firstname.lastname@example.org). DB, BF, and TG are the founders of PCI, and RH is a colleague and member of the board of PCI Evol Biol.
We believe that the current system of publishing with academic journals suffers from four crucial problems. First, Continue reading