d****d
发帖数: 214 | 1 Editorial
Minimizing the “Re” in Review
Elizabeth H. Williams1,Pamela A. Carpentier2, andTom Misteli3
There is a troubling trend in scientific publishing for manuscripts to
undergo multiple, often lengthy, rounds of review, resulting in significant
delays to publication. JCB is announcing new procedures to streamline its
editorial process and eliminate unnecessary delays.
It is exceedingly rare that a manuscript is published as originally
submitted to a journal. Revisions are an integral part of the publication
process, and both editors and scientists agree that the review process often
improves and strengthens a body of work. However, there is widespread, and
justified, concern in the community that it has become increasingly common
for submitted manuscripts to go through multiple rounds of review,
prolonging the time to publication. This can cause anything from a nuisance
to authors to consequences affecting job applications, grants, and tenure
decisions (Robertson, 2009, 2011; Petsko, 2011; Ploegh, 2011; Leptin, 2012).
Although some revisions are essential to eliminate technical concerns or to
substantiate the conclusions of a study, other requested experiments do not
strengthen a manuscript but merely fatten it. These nonessential revisions
are a significant burden to authors and do not benefit journals or
scientific advancement on the whole.
Our position at JCB is that Editors need to play an active role in guiding
authors on which revisions are essential and which ones are not. Consistent
with this, our Monitoring Editors who oversee the review of individual
manuscripts—and who are themselves active scientists—do not just act as
collators of referees’ comments but rather use their own scientific
expertise to guide the editorial process. In that spirit, JCB has a long
tradition of encouraging our Monitoring Editors to provide detailed feedback
to authors about which revisions are necessary and which superfluous.
JCB recently took an additional step to clarify for authors what is
essential to reach acceptance and to expedite the editorial process. In
September of 2011, we launched a new article type called Tools and with it
an expedited review process, which we refer to as Single Round Review. We
now have extended Single Round Review to include submissions in the Report
format. We also now limit the number of rounds of rereview for Articles, as
described below.
How does Single Round Review for Reports and Tools work? The initial steps
follow our traditional submission process: a manuscript is assessed by a
Monitoring Editor from our Editorial Board and, if considered potentially
competitive for publication, is sent to referees for full external review.
The Monitoring Editor then makes an initial decision based on the referees’
comments. Importantly, the specific points raised by the reviewers that
require attention—as opposed to those that are optional—are articulated in
the decision letter so that the Monitoring Editor’s expectations are clear
. The most noticeable change imposed by Single Round Review lies in the
handling of a revised manuscript. Once the revised manuscript is submitted,
it is not returned to the referees. Rather, the Monitoring Editor makes a
final, and rapid, decision regarding whether the essential points have been
addressed and, thus, whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
This streamlined editorial process takes advantage of one of the strengths
of JCB: the fact that all decisions on our manuscripts are made by active
scientists in the field, who are intimately familiar with both the
intellectual context as well as the methodology used in the manuscripts they
handle. This allows them to make informed decisions based on the science in
the manuscript rather than simply acting as middlemen between reviewers and
authors. Their engagement in the process ensures that the authors’ efforts
during revision are focused on the most important questions, increasing the
transparency of the process and weeding out unnecessary experiments.
Cases of prolonged review are often associated with another trend in
publishing: the requirement to present a “full story” for a paper to be
publishable. There can be tremendous value in simple observations that may
have the potential to open up new lines of investigation in a budding field
without providing all the mechanistic details. The quest for the full story
may hinder and delay rapid communication of important results. The Reports
format was introduced in 1999 to address this issue, and adopting Single
Round Review for Reports ensures that these cutting-edge submissions of
outstanding interest reach the cell biology community even more rapidly.
We also have streamlined the review process for Articles, which are often
longer and more complex bodies of work than Reports and Tools. For Articles
we now strictly enforce a limit of a single round of substantial
experimental revision and a second round of external review by referees. As
a result, revised Articles that address in a single round of revision all of
the issues that the Monitoring Editor articulated as essential reach
acceptance more quickly. On the other hand, revised Articles that fail to
address all of the experimental concerns are rejected—rather than allowed
to undergo further rounds of revision and review—so that the authors can
move on quickly to a more suitable publishing venue.
The advantages of these policies are obvious. Multiple, lengthy rounds of
review are avoided, and final decisions often are made within days rather
than weeks. Based on our experience with Tools submissions, we are confident
that these changes will effectively address many of the concerns that
members of the cell biology community have expressed about prolonged
editorial processes. The experience and feedback from authors to date for
Tools submissions has been overwhelmingly positive, and BMC Biology has had
a similarly positive response since it began offering authors the choice to
opt out of a second round of referee review (Robertson, 2011).
The purpose of a scientific journal goes beyond simply communicating science
. It is also our duty to improve how science is communicated, to facilitate
the process, and to promote improvements in scientific culture. By adopting
these limits on rereview, we are taking practical steps to eliminate a
significant weakness in the peer review process and to better serve the
needs of today’s scientists while also continuing to maintain the integrity
and quality of publications in JCB. |
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 2 “Although some revisions are essential to eliminate technical concerns or
to substantiate the conclusions of a study, other requested experiments do
not strengthen a manuscript but merely fatten it.”
I like the second half of the sentence. |
l****i
发帖数: 20439 | 3 我也觉得这句话说得很解恨
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: “Although some revisions are essential to eliminate technical concerns or
: to substantiate the conclusions of a study, other requested experiments do
: not strengthen a manuscript but merely fatten it.”
: I like the second half of the sentence.
|
F*K
发帖数: 608 | 4 Hopefully more journals take a step toward this direction.
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: “Although some revisions are essential to eliminate technical concerns or
: to substantiate the conclusions of a study, other requested experiments do
: not strengthen a manuscript but merely fatten it.”
: I like the second half of the sentence.
|
O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 5 这样一来，编辑的权力变大了，但却更难做了
significant
often
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: Editorial
: Minimizing the “Re” in Review
: Elizabeth H. Williams1,Pamela A. Carpentier2, andTom Misteli3
: There is a troubling trend in scientific publishing for manuscripts to
: undergo multiple, often lengthy, rounds of review, resulting in significant
: delays to publication. JCB is announcing new procedures to streamline its
: editorial process and eliminate unnecessary delays.
: It is exceedingly rare that a manuscript is published as originally
: submitted to a journal. Revisions are an integral part of the publication
: process, and both editors and scientists agree that the review process often
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 6 Is it true that editors always have the final say? What is different is
whether editors feel comfortable to rely on their own judgement or more on
reviewer's judgement.
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 这样一来，编辑的权力变大了，但却更难做了
:
: significant
: often
|
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 7 可以看作是JCB抢新发现和影响因子的举动。
希望其他journal一起来抢才好。
我们上一篇文章被一个reviewer提了15大点意见，颠三倒四说不清楚，还给我们说，为
了确证我们一句话“xxx is unlikely to contribute to ...”，得做36个condition
才行，这都要在老鼠身上做啊，我去。 |
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 8 他们本来也不做什么。
最近不是哈佛抵制期刊收费发表了教授免费review的文章再让大学花钱买进来给教授？
我就听了一耳朵，怎么生物版没人说呢。
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 这样一来，编辑的权力变大了，但却更难做了
:
: significant
: often
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 9 If journals cannot make profit, will they still have the drive to compete
and expand (like Nature series journals)?
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 他们本来也不做什么。
: 最近不是哈佛抵制期刊收费发表了教授免费review的文章再让大学花钱买进来给教授？
: 我就听了一耳朵，怎么生物版没人说呢。
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 10 Regardless of the purpose of JCB's move, I think it is a very welcome one.
Most of us have been sickened of extra data requested by the reviewers to
fatten the manuscript.
condition
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 可以看作是JCB抢新发现和影响因子的举动。
: 希望其他journal一起来抢才好。
: 我们上一篇文章被一个reviewer提了15大点意见，颠三倒四说不清楚，还给我们说，为
: 了确证我们一句话“xxx is unlikely to contribute to ...”，得做36个condition
: 才行，这都要在老鼠身上做啊，我去。
|
|
|
d********m
发帖数: 3662 | 11 i think that would be a severe blow on the part of reviewers. what's the
point of their thorough reviews and careful point-outs without even getting
any feedback? if it were me as a reviewer for jcb, i would be just going
through the motions then instead.
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: Is it true that editors always have the final say? What is different is
: whether editors feel comfortable to rely on their own judgement or more on
: reviewer's judgement.
|
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 12 赞。
说的太对了。
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: “Although some revisions are essential to eliminate technical concerns or
: to substantiate the conclusions of a study, other requested experiments do
: not strengthen a manuscript but merely fatten it.”
: I like the second half of the sentence.
|
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 13 我觉得主要是现在的审稿者很多都不是在就事论事，而是把他们自己的怨气发泄到
其他无辜的人的身上。如果审稿者仅仅是讨论结论是否可靠，或者数据是否完整，
这个我能理解也能接受，但是很多时候我们收到的意见就是那么两种：
1。你们的故事不够新，根据你们以前做的某某某某文章，我就能推断出你现在这个文
章的
结果了。（尼玛，如果生物里面光根据推论就可以不需要真实数据的话，那我们这些研
究人员都不需要存在了）
2。你们虽然回答了领域里的abcd这些问题，但是我要求你们把efghi...xyz等等有关问
题一律统统解决，不解决就休想过关。（我靠，我一天早上起来吃早饭的时候不把中午
饭和晚饭一起吃完是不是就不许出门？） |
d********m
发帖数: 3662 | 14 seems to me that the new policy of JCB wouldn't change the situation you
just referred to at all.
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得主要是现在的审稿者很多都不是在就事论事，而是把他们自己的怨气发泄到
: 其他无辜的人的身上。如果审稿者仅仅是讨论结论是否可靠，或者数据是否完整，
: 这个我能理解也能接受，但是很多时候我们收到的意见就是那么两种：
: 1。你们的故事不够新，根据你们以前做的某某某某文章，我就能推断出你现在这个文
: 章的
: 结果了。（尼玛，如果生物里面光根据推论就可以不需要真实数据的话，那我们这些研
: 究人员都不需要存在了）
: 2。你们虽然回答了领域里的abcd这些问题，但是我要求你们把efghi...xyz等等有关问
: 题一律统统解决，不解决就休想过关。（我靠，我一天早上起来吃早饭的时候不把中午
: 饭和晚饭一起吃完是不是就不许出门？）
|
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 15 如果nature倒了，难道领域内的科学家就没有能力辨别哪些是好文章了么？
现在journal收到文章扫一眼abstract，寄给两个人看看，两个人结论不一致，寄给第
三个人看看，三人结论不一致，就拒了，或者补一年实验，然后再寄给三人看看，结果
三人有一个没回信，寄给第四个人看看，意见又不一致，找第五个人。。。完了终于发
表了，先是让你自己排排版，你的文章要是变成journal的字号你觉得要几页纸？图片
要怎么怎么排什么什么格式，然后文章两千，一张图上个色就八百，supplementary彩
图也八百，，，，
他journals有啥贡献？
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: If journals cannot make profit, will they still have the drive to compete
: and expand (like Nature series journals)?
|
d********m
发帖数: 3662 | 16 i suppose you're an advocate for anarchy. hehe
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 如果nature倒了，难道领域内的科学家就没有能力辨别哪些是好文章了么？
: 现在journal收到文章扫一眼abstract，寄给两个人看看，两个人结论不一致，寄给第
: 三个人看看，三人结论不一致，就拒了，或者补一年实验，然后再寄给三人看看，结果
: 三人有一个没回信，寄给第四个人看看，意见又不一致，找第五个人。。。完了终于发
: 表了，先是让你自己排排版，你的文章要是变成journal的字号你觉得要几页纸？图片
: 要怎么怎么排什么什么格式，然后文章两千，一张图上个色就八百，supplementary彩
: 图也八百，，，，
: 他journals有啥贡献？
|
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 17 哈哈，还好没说我愤世嫉俗～
【在 d********m 的大作中提到】
: i suppose you're an advocate for anarchy. hehe
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 18 That's the power of brand. Prestige comes automatically to journals with
names starting with "Nature". :(
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 如果nature倒了，难道领域内的科学家就没有能力辨别哪些是好文章了么？
: 现在journal收到文章扫一眼abstract，寄给两个人看看，两个人结论不一致，寄给第
: 三个人看看，三人结论不一致，就拒了，或者补一年实验，然后再寄给三人看看，结果
: 三人有一个没回信，寄给第四个人看看，意见又不一致，找第五个人。。。完了终于发
: 表了，先是让你自己排排版，你的文章要是变成journal的字号你觉得要几页纸？图片
: 要怎么怎么排什么什么格式，然后文章两千，一张图上个色就八百，supplementary彩
: 图也八百，，，，
: 他journals有啥贡献？
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 19 I think JCB is fully aware of Sunnyday's complain of the demand of "full
stories". Below is the part of the editorial related to this issue:
"Cases of prolonged review are often associated with another trend in
publishing: the requirement to present a “full story” for a paper to be
publishable. There can be tremendous value in simple observations that may
have the potential to open up new lines of investigation in a budding field
without providing all the mechanistic details. The quest for the full story
may hinder and delay rapid communication of important results."
【在 d********m 的大作中提到】
: seems to me that the new policy of JCB wouldn't change the situation you
: just referred to at all.
|
t****p
发帖数: 1504 | 20 干得好。JCB最好因此影响因子飙高，其它杂志不得不跟进，呵呵。
significant
often
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: Editorial
: Minimizing the “Re” in Review
: Elizabeth H. Williams1,Pamela A. Carpentier2, andTom Misteli3
: There is a troubling trend in scientific publishing for manuscripts to
: undergo multiple, often lengthy, rounds of review, resulting in significant
: delays to publication. JCB is announcing new procedures to streamline its
: editorial process and eliminate unnecessary delays.
: It is exceedingly rare that a manuscript is published as originally
: submitted to a journal. Revisions are an integral part of the publication
: process, and both editors and scientists agree that the review process often
|
|
|
d********m
发帖数: 3662 | 21 i know what you're talking about, actually jcb has a separate report
session to put out the so-called single observation.
my point is, seems to me that this new policy wouldn't prevent the reviewers
from coming up with their unreasonable viewpoints, and therefore would be
no good to you.
suppose this policy comes into effect right away, and of course you would
receive a feedback from a reviewer full of "bullshit" sunnyday was referring
to. what would you do to get the best of it? keeping working and including
those experiments suggested by the reviewer? or whining this to editor and
asking for sympathy? nothing changes actually.
field
story
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: I think JCB is fully aware of Sunnyday's complain of the demand of "full
: stories". Below is the part of the editorial related to this issue:
: "Cases of prolonged review are often associated with another trend in
: publishing: the requirement to present a “full story” for a paper to be
: publishable. There can be tremendous value in simple observations that may
: have the potential to open up new lines of investigation in a budding field
: without providing all the mechanistic details. The quest for the full story
: may hinder and delay rapid communication of important results."
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 22 Please read this: "JCB has a long tradition of encouraging our Monitoring
Editors to provide detailed feedback to authors about which revisions are
necessary and which superfluous."
So hopefully the Monitoring Editors can integrate and distill the reviewers
comments and come up with more reasonable and objective guides for authors
to work with.
reviewers
referring
including
【在 d********m 的大作中提到】
: i know what you're talking about, actually jcb has a separate report
: session to put out the so-called single observation.
: my point is, seems to me that this new policy wouldn't prevent the reviewers
: from coming up with their unreasonable viewpoints, and therefore would be
: no good to you.
: suppose this policy comes into effect right away, and of course you would
: receive a feedback from a reviewer full of "bullshit" sunnyday was referring
: to. what would you do to get the best of it? keeping working and including
: those experiments suggested by the reviewer? or whining this to editor and
: asking for sympathy? nothing changes actually.
|
O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 23 这个举措也没有说去杜绝审稿人提出过分要求。他们是想防止审稿人反复提出新问题，
导致文章发表困难重重严重滞后。
至少以后投JCB受到的虐待会大幅度减少，呵呵
reviewers
referring
including
【在 d********m 的大作中提到】
: i know what you're talking about, actually jcb has a separate report
: session to put out the so-called single observation.
: my point is, seems to me that this new policy wouldn't prevent the reviewers
: from coming up with their unreasonable viewpoints, and therefore would be
: no good to you.
: suppose this policy comes into effect right away, and of course you would
: receive a feedback from a reviewer full of "bullshit" sunnyday was referring
: to. what would you do to get the best of it? keeping working and including
: those experiments suggested by the reviewer? or whining this to editor and
: asking for sympathy? nothing changes actually.
|
t****p
发帖数: 1504 | 24 现在最大的抱怨就是reviewer提很多问题，文章的data超多，不仅作者受虐待，读者也
深受影响。
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 这个举措也没有说去杜绝审稿人提出过分要求。他们是想防止审稿人反复提出新问题，
: 导致文章发表困难重重严重滞后。
: 至少以后投JCB受到的虐待会大幅度减少，呵呵
:
: reviewers
: referring
: including
|
s******y
发帖数: 28562 | 25 指望JCB 来当救世主是不现实的，但是她们的态度至少会让大部分审稿者在提意见的时候
慎重一些，少提一些荒唐的要求。而且她们的one-round 的新规定也能限制某些恶意的
审稿者在二审三审的时候不停地提出新要求。
我觉得即使是她们能够站在作者的立场上提出这些问题，已经挺不容易的了。不过我们也
别指望整个领域的风气能够为此完全改变就是了
reviewers
referring
including
【在 d********m 的大作中提到】
: i know what you're talking about, actually jcb has a separate report
: session to put out the so-called single observation.
: my point is, seems to me that this new policy wouldn't prevent the reviewers
: from coming up with their unreasonable viewpoints, and therefore would be
: no good to you.
: suppose this policy comes into effect right away, and of course you would
: receive a feedback from a reviewer full of "bullshit" sunnyday was referring
: to. what would you do to get the best of it? keeping working and including
: those experiments suggested by the reviewer? or whining this to editor and
: asking for sympathy? nothing changes actually.
|
D*a
发帖数: 6830 | 26 本质上还是JCB看准了这个机会抢新发现，提高影响因子。
客观上促进了学术发表。
为啥分主观客观，因为其实editor没有任何动力去促进科学界进步，虽然这篇文章说的
冠冕堂皇。但是editor却很有动力去抢新发现，因此就给了editor动力缩短审稿过程。
正因为editor有动力，我才看好JCB会有实际动作。相反Nature在它的view栏目登大小
牛的complain也登了好几篇了，但是每次除了大家说，哇，nature也关注这个问题，没
有什么实际的动作，这是因为nature不愁稿源，地位也没有受到威胁，因此有任何实际
动作的可能性很小。
我说的那个15大点要求就是针对我们一篇“single observation”类的文章，无奈又扩
展成全文，正收尾呢。
reviewers
referring
including
【在 d********m 的大作中提到】
: i know what you're talking about, actually jcb has a separate report
: session to put out the so-called single observation.
: my point is, seems to me that this new policy wouldn't prevent the reviewers
: from coming up with their unreasonable viewpoints, and therefore would be
: no good to you.
: suppose this policy comes into effect right away, and of course you would
: receive a feedback from a reviewer full of "bullshit" sunnyday was referring
: to. what would you do to get the best of it? keeping working and including
: those experiments suggested by the reviewer? or whining this to editor and
: asking for sympathy? nothing changes actually.
|
O******e
发帖数: 4845 | 27 从理想的角度出发，我们当然希望JCB成功。可惜它的影响力太小了。不过他们这样做，
也算是给自己一贯的好名声又加了一小道光环。
要是CNS中的一家有这个举措就好了，哪怕是PLoS也成啊。。。
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 本质上还是JCB看准了这个机会抢新发现，提高影响因子。
: 客观上促进了学术发表。
: 为啥分主观客观，因为其实editor没有任何动力去促进科学界进步，虽然这篇文章说的
: 冠冕堂皇。但是editor却很有动力去抢新发现，因此就给了editor动力缩短审稿过程。
: 正因为editor有动力，我才看好JCB会有实际动作。相反Nature在它的view栏目登大小
: 牛的complain也登了好几篇了，但是每次除了大家说，哇，nature也关注这个问题，没
: 有什么实际的动作，这是因为nature不愁稿源，地位也没有受到威胁，因此有任何实际
: 动作的可能性很小。
: 我说的那个15大点要求就是针对我们一篇“single observation”类的文章，无奈又扩
: 展成全文，正收尾呢。
|
d****d
发帖数: 214 | 28 CNS在不愁稿源的情况下对一些reviewer的漫天要价睁一只眼闭一只眼可能也是出于私
心吧。毕竟油多不坏菜，data多了只会对引用率有好处。
JCB在生物杂志里也是政治局委员级别的吧，在本领域里的影响也不算小了。逼一逼宫
，对常委们也是个促动吧。:)
做，
【在 O******e 的大作中提到】
: 从理想的角度出发，我们当然希望JCB成功。可惜它的影响力太小了。不过他们这样做，
: 也算是给自己一贯的好名声又加了一小道光环。
: 要是CNS中的一家有这个举措就好了，哪怕是PLoS也成啊。。。
|
h********n
发帖数: 4079 | 29 我投过的好几个journal都明确说只有一轮修改机会.
时候
们也
【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 指望JCB 来当救世主是不现实的，但是她们的态度至少会让大部分审稿者在提意见的时候
: 慎重一些，少提一些荒唐的要求。而且她们的one-round 的新规定也能限制某些恶意的
: 审稿者在二审三审的时候不停地提出新要求。
: 我觉得即使是她们能够站在作者的立场上提出这些问题，已经挺不容易的了。不过我们也
: 别指望整个领域的风气能够为此完全改变就是了
:
: reviewers
: referring
: including
|
w********r
发帖数: 1431 | 30 哈哈，赞政治局委员级别
【在 d****d 的大作中提到】
: CNS在不愁稿源的情况下对一些reviewer的漫天要价睁一只眼闭一只眼可能也是出于私
: 心吧。毕竟油多不坏菜，data多了只会对引用率有好处。
: JCB在生物杂志里也是政治局委员级别的吧，在本领域里的影响也不算小了。逼一逼宫
: ，对常委们也是个促动吧。:)
:
: 做，
|
|
|
l*******r
发帖数: 39279 | 31 我同意你说的
【在 D*a 的大作中提到】
: 本质上还是JCB看准了这个机会抢新发现，提高影响因子。
: 客观上促进了学术发表。
: 为啥分主观客观，因为其实editor没有任何动力去促进科学界进步，虽然这篇文章说的
: 冠冕堂皇。但是editor却很有动力去抢新发现，因此就给了editor动力缩短审稿过程。
: 正因为editor有动力，我才看好JCB会有实际动作。相反Nature在它的view栏目登大小
: 牛的complain也登了好几篇了，但是每次除了大家说，哇，nature也关注这个问题，没
: 有什么实际的动作，这是因为nature不愁稿源，地位也没有受到威胁，因此有任何实际
: 动作的可能性很小。
: 我说的那个15大点要求就是针对我们一篇“single observation”类的文章，无奈又扩
: 展成全文，正收尾呢。
|
