Cognitive dissonance is part of the human state. I ate cheese. But if we try, we can do better. I no longer eat cheese, and I will not participate in the preliminary fellow review. I quit.
plenteous occasionI wrote about my dislike of pre -public colleagues. It does not work. Nevertheless, we promoted a platform that supports the system. Publons like. I even joined the editorial committee Pharmaceutical Economics -OpenAnd I recently became editor -in -chief. BorderJournal that relies on pre -publishing colleagues.
I tried to be a great and fair reviewer. I usually identify myself by name in the report, and the victim provides retaliation opportunities. I have reviewed or edited more than 100 papers in my time, and I can calculate one hand that recommends one hand to reject it. It is not worth it and there are few papers beyond salvation. I haven’t issued a recommendation for publishing comfortably, but I still did it.
I will not practice criticism of fellow review because you can read them elsewhere. The read here is at least in partial inspiration. Articles from Adam Mastroianni; I finally encouraged me to take action. However, I think that health economics is particularly limited by fellow reviews without adopting the work papers of economics or preliminary printing of health sciences. And time for change.
The author is not a problem
Perhaps the most important challenge in this context is that we -researchers rely on journals for living. The journal creates a rules. Therefore, we maintain the competition. I sympathize with the idea of the boycott journal. I once believed this was the only way. But this is not necessary to deal with fellow review. Because the author is not a problem here. Fellow reviewers and editors are a problem or at least a system.
I will continue to submit the manuscript to the journal that uses my colleague review as my job needs. And it doesn’t make me a hypocrite. This is not because you want to provide a fellow review when you submit it to the journal. Rather, they did not send it for the review. But it is their choice. With the hope that my paper will not be to others, I want them to publish it.
When we choose to apply our own papers to the journal’s fellow review process, we do nothing. It is a self -deformation, but it does not contribute to the distortion of scientific effort (unless we are sold out and changing for better judgments). The wrong thing is that others are reviewed by colleagues. They are not eligible to receive a single mother, and they do not come from the masked perpetrators.
What is it now?
I handed it to my notice (0 days) Pharmaceutical Economics -Open and Border; They appear ominous in my resume and appear with the end date. No more preliminary publication fellow reviews for journals or others are provided or supervised. I still have to say that I like two journals. Tim Wrightson is one of the best journal editors in our field. The frontier model of the conversation fellow review is much better than almost all other publishers. Nevertheless, I would like to switch to a model that does not include pre -publishing fellow reviews.
There are three ways to take weight without contributing to the peer review before publishing.
First, you can spend more time reviewing your colleagues after publishing. More and more platforms and publishers support. F1000RESEARCH It is one of the best publishers in this space and has the following platform: Pubber. There is also an approach with less adjustment of post -publication, such as writing an article about an article on this blog.
Second, there are several types of pre -supply colleagues that need to continue, and we will try to do more. One is looking at the paper before submitting a favor and submission to colleagues and colleagues. The other is discussing work papers at meetings and other meetings. In this context, the author does not see the reviewer, and if it is wrong or not help, feedback can be ignored much easier.
Third-this is virtual for me now. We can play an editing role that is not related to the pre -publishing colleague review. In a world without a preliminary publication fellow review, the publisher still has to make an editing decision. In the meantime, platforms such as Medrxiv or F1000 maintain the default standard for filtering the drive.
So that’s it. There is no peer review anymore before publishing. My morality has found a balance. My heart is comfortable.
We announce new features
With all this in mind, today we are starting new features on the site. Our goal is to encourage fellow review after more publication in the health economy. To achieve this, we started a simple web page where you can ask for a review and find a paper to review. Visit the new fellow review page and participate.
picture Ordinary studio ~ Unsplash
