A points system for peer review
22 Dec, 2011
In my last commentary, I complained about the never-ending review load. It’s a necessary part of the job, but at the same time, is not particularly fair. One journal that I publish to and also act as a reviewer now tell me their goal is ‘to have an editorial decision within two or three weeks of submission’. My own papers submitted to this journal take two or three months to receive that decision, so this is aspirational at best, and pointless bull**** at worst.
I’d like to explore a points system, where a credit is accumulated for good citizenship (e.g. three points for each paper reviewed, five points for each one reviewed within the allotted journal time) so that god behaviour is recognised and rewarded. Good to recognise this, but how can the points be cashed in? Certainly not by any ‘since track’ in the peer review process that compromises the integrity of the process. But, there are other things that are appealing to authors. How about - ‘spend fifteen points and get a free colour plate’ or ‘spend ten points and we reduce the open access page charges by 25%’? Or even, ‘you cannot submit unless you have at least 12 points’? Maybe a high points earner might be given expedited handling and processing? Authors could pool their points to access such rewards.
This system has some appeal, but i will fail unless we have a system whereby every scientific author is given a unique, for-life, identifier. Name changes, laboratory, city, country moves are no longer a problem, because your ID moves with you. It would make looking for someone’s life career outputs and activity a lot easier, a PubMed search of ‘AU=134-564-1344’ would be a lot easier than current methods - try constructing a search at present that retrieves all of your, but only your publications, especially if your surname is Jones or Smith, or Li and if you have changed your surname name in the middle of the publication trail. This to me is a long overdue requirement of effective tracking of authorship and peer review. The ‘points history’ of the system will also indicate whether these individuals are good symbiotes, parasites or hosts. I’d need to be strongly persuaded to take on a heavily parasitic person who would seem to me to be rather selfish.
The points system could be extended, once the unique ID was established. Membership of a grants panel is incredibly hard work, and has few overt rewards. Why not assign a points value to such community activities? Reduced registration fees at scientific meetings for ‘good citizens’?
It might just work.
I’d like to explore a points system, where a credit is accumulated for good citizenship (e.g. three points for each paper reviewed, five points for each one reviewed within the allotted journal time) so that god behaviour is recognised and rewarded. Good to recognise this, but how can the points be cashed in? Certainly not by any ‘since track’ in the peer review process that compromises the integrity of the process. But, there are other things that are appealing to authors. How about - ‘spend fifteen points and get a free colour plate’ or ‘spend ten points and we reduce the open access page charges by 25%’? Or even, ‘you cannot submit unless you have at least 12 points’? Maybe a high points earner might be given expedited handling and processing? Authors could pool their points to access such rewards.
This system has some appeal, but i will fail unless we have a system whereby every scientific author is given a unique, for-life, identifier. Name changes, laboratory, city, country moves are no longer a problem, because your ID moves with you. It would make looking for someone’s life career outputs and activity a lot easier, a PubMed search of ‘AU=134-564-1344’ would be a lot easier than current methods - try constructing a search at present that retrieves all of your, but only your publications, especially if your surname is Jones or Smith, or Li and if you have changed your surname name in the middle of the publication trail. This to me is a long overdue requirement of effective tracking of authorship and peer review. The ‘points history’ of the system will also indicate whether these individuals are good symbiotes, parasites or hosts. I’d need to be strongly persuaded to take on a heavily parasitic person who would seem to me to be rather selfish.
The points system could be extended, once the unique ID was established. Membership of a grants panel is incredibly hard work, and has few overt rewards. Why not assign a points value to such community activities? Reduced registration fees at scientific meetings for ‘good citizens’?
It might just work.