Dear Tassos, Thankyou for sharing your own experiences as an Editor with Proteins, and with PNAS, which I really appreciate, and in particular for your suggestion of an anonymous Editor approach.This is interesting to me not least as one of the three Appeals I rejected, to which I referred below, led to what can only be described as 'hate email'. Indeed I will carry forward your suggestion to the IUCr Journals Commission via the Managing Editor (Peter Strickland), who I copy into this reply. [On a point of terminology within IUCr Journals we refer to the Editors and Co-Editors, who are scientific editors, and overall there is a Managing Editor based at IUCr HQ, which is Peter.] Yours sincerely, John cc
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Anastassis Perrakis <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear John, > I did not have the IUCr journals specifically in mind while making these > remarks. > Quite the contrary, I think due to you and other colleagues and friends, > they are > run competently and to the benefit of the community and of science at large. > If I may though offer an opinion about the peer review system in IUCr > journals, > I personally find the concept that the authors know the identity of the > managing > editor, wrong. I am sure that in the majority of cases its not a problem, > but often a managing editor can hesitate to communicate a negative referee > report > to e.g. an old colleague or good friend, whose manuscript she/he is > handling, > even when one of the referees is negative. > I much prefer the system of e.g. Proteins (where I act as a managing > editor), > where authors never learn the identity of the managing editor far more > comfortable > (there is a few people that I would rather prefer if they don't know for > sure that I rejected their paper), > and the current system of PNAS were you learn the identity of the > editor only if your paper is accepted and after is published, far superior > (you make friends but not enemies ...) > I would not mind to had seen IUCr journals adopting a similar system, I > think it would improve even further > their good reputation. > A. > > On Nov 19, 2010, at 12:32, John R Helliwell wrote: > > I don't wish to vear away from Victor's thrust with starting this > thread and I would happily sign the petition you suggest. > > But I feel I should respond to the assertions about 'problems of peer > review' at least with respect to Journals of my experience. > Some 'Editor handling of submissions' statistics should help quantify > such matters. These are a matter of public record re my IUCr Journals > submission handling statistics ie therefore not confidential and which > basically are:- > approx 1000 article submissions; > my rejection rate 20%; > appeals against my rejections 0.5%; > As Editor in Chief of Acta Cryst between 1996 to 2005 I received three > appeals (out of approx tens of thousands of submissions through all > Coeditors); I rejected these three. [My judgements were confidential > re the details.] > > I can add that for the 2000 referees' reports or so for my article > handling of submissions, that colleagues have kindly supplied to my > Editor requests, problems involve:- > about 1% where the report is 'publish as is' AND without any > commendation given; these are in effect not terribly useful reports to > me as an Editor. Another problem, which is growing, is the number of > declines to my invites to referee (around 10%). Even worse are the no > replies at all from invited referees as time is lost to the authors > who rightly expect as prompt as possible handling. > > Re your points I offer replies as follows:- > "Let me outline what I think are problems of peer review: > > 1. 'review by last author name'. Very often the last author is well > known, or a friend, and the reviewers' critical judgement takes a > temporary leave of abesnse. > JRH reply:- Such reports would be easy to spot and are not a problem > in my experience and so resort to double blind review is not necessary > in my experience. > > 2. 'preferred reviewers'. a double edged sword .. think about it. > JRH reply; these are not so commonly offered suggestions by authors in > fact and where they are one can follow or decide against (see point > 1). > > > 3. too much power of decision on editors (professional or academic) > being able to reject papers without peer-review in many journals. > JRH reply;This approach, 'insufficent general interest' is for the > magazines we know and yet still love. > > 4. Bad refereeing - sometimes I wonder if people read the paper. > JRH reply;Such reports are very few and obvious. The other categories > above are more common (ie 'publish as is' category). > > 5. Lack of referee expertise: you get papers these days with: a > structure, some biochemistry, some SAXS, some biophysics, and a cell > based assay. Two or three people being > able to pick up all the mistakes is very unlikely. > JRH reply; Papers can be challenging re content and your example here > is a good one. Other chalenging cases are where they include a lot of > maths. That said peer review does its best but can occasionally fail; > this level of failure can be measured by the number of criticism > articles or formal retractions. These are also very few, but it is > true, not zero. > > Yours sincerely, > John > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Anastassis Perrakis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2010, at 11:18, James Stroud wrote: > > The future of publishing will be > > (1) Publish your own work > > (2) Peer review by the entire community > > Although I have been remarkably bad at predicting the future, I still like > > attempting to do so ...! > > This will not happen ...! ;-) > > To be honest, I am not even sure its a great idea ... > > Let me outline what I think are problems of peer review: > > 1. 'review by last author name'. Very often the last author is well > > known, or a friend, and the reviewers' critical judgement takes a temporary > > leave of abesnse. > > 2. 'preferred reviewers'. a double edged sword .. think about it. > > 3. too much power of decision on editors (professional or academic) being > > able to reject papers without peer-review in many journals. > > 4. Bad refereeing - sometimes I wonder if people read the paper. > > 5. Lack of referee expertise: you get papers these days with: a structure, > > some biochemistry, some SAXS, some biophysics, and a cell based assay. Two > > or three people being > > able to pick up all the mistakes is very unlikely. > > Having outlines these, I can see ways that all can be amplified if you just > > publish all your work, and anybody can comment on it: > > Pairing to the above problems, you just amplify them: > > 1. Even more tempting to earn brownie points online! > > 2. you can ask your friends or I can ask your enemies to review > > 3. the other way around: far too many things out... how to filter ? > > 4. Lack of 'obligation', or even fear to make yourself look like a fool to > > the editors, will make commenting even more sloppy > > 5. People that think they are experts dwell on meaningless technicalities. > > Peer review is like democracy, its the worst publication system we can have, > > except the ones that have been tried or suggested ... > > A. > > (3) Citation = Link > > #3 makes it work. > > Give it 25 years. The journals won't be in the position to lobby lawmakers > > to prevent this trend if we make sure the journals die so slowly that they > > don't realize it. > > James > > > On Nov 18, 2010, at 1:14 AM, John R Helliwell wrote: > > Dear Jacob, > > Your posting reminds me of a Research Information Network Conference I > > went to in 2006 in London. > > Your views coincide with a presenter there, Peter Mika. > > His talk can be found at:- > > http://www.rin.ac.uk/news/events/data-webs-new-visions-research-data-web > > In his talk he referred to:- openacademia.org > > Peter Mika and I were on the Closing Panel; he advocated that > > refereeing is an imposition on a researcher's > > individual freedom and thus he/she should 'publish' their work on > > their own website. By contrast, I argued in favour of > > Journals and peer review, both with respect to my articles and my > > experiences as an Editor of more than one Journal. > > I would be happy to continue corresponding on this not least as > > publication should be a varied spectrum of options. > > Also I feel obliged to say that one cannot apply simply, by rote, > > 'Learned Society publisher is good', 'commercial publisher is bad'; > > there are exceptions in both camps. [in effect this was the tone of my > > last posting.] > > Greetings, > > John > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Jacob Keller > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I guess the practice of being "on your best behavior" is good in terms > > of getting the research trimmed into shape, but there is a huge > > temptation to fudge things to get published, and to hide unpleasant > > artifacts, as can be seen by the many recent (and not so recent) > > scandals. Maybe as a lab website things would be more open. Also, > > having a comments section always seemed like an excellent idea to me, > > even for journals as they are, but would be really easy to implement > > in a website. I would love to read comments from others in the field > > about the papers I read, as sometimes people can help to point out > > gaping holes where one might not see them otherwise. It would be like > > "journal club" for the whole scientific community. > > Jacob > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jrh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Jacob > > Re journals out of the window:- > > Well, like democracy, journals may not be ideal but I believe other > > alternatives such as free for all personal website publishing, are worse. > > So, journals that are community driven offer an optimal approach, critically > > based on specialist peer review. That is why our community effort IUCr > > Journals I believe are so important. Open access, where we can sustain it > > financially, also can convey access to the widest readership ie that the > > high impact magazines currently, mainly, command. > > All best wishes, > > John > > Prof John R Helliwell DSc > > > On 17 Nov 2010, at 18:28, Jacob Keller <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Supplementary info seems to me to be a double-edged sword--I just read > > a Nature article that had 45 pages of supplementary info. This means > > that you get a lot more for your money, but all of the methods and > > Why not have papers be as long as the authors want, now that almost > > everything is internet-based? It would make the papers much more > > organized overall, and would obviate the reference issue mentioned in > > this thread. To avoid them being too too long, reviewers could object > > to long-windedness etc. But, it would definitely make for a more > > complete "lab notebook of the scientific community," assuming that > > that is what we are after. > > Incidentally, I have been curious in the past why journals are not > > going out the window themselves--why not have individual labs just > > post their most recent data and interpretations on their own websites, > > with a comments section perhaps? (I know there are about a thousand > > cynical reasons why not...) One could even have a place for > > "reliability rating" or "impact rating" on each new chunk of data. > > Anyway, it would be much more like a real-time, public lab notebook, > > and would make interaction much faster, and cut out the publishing > > middlemen. > > JPK > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Phoebe Rice <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another unfortunate aspect of this sort of editorial policy is that many of > > these papers contain almost no technical information at all, except for the > > supplement. I've started to avoid using Nature papers for class discussions > > becuase they leave the students so puzzled, and with a > > glossiness-is-all-that-matters idea of science. > > > ===================================== > > Phoebe A. Rice > > Dept. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology > > The University of Chicago > > phone 773 834 1723 > > http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/Faculty_and_Research/01_Faculty/01_Faculty_Alphabetically.php?faculty_id=123 > > http://www.rsc.org/shop/books/2008/9780854042722.asp > > > ---- Original message ---- > > Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:12:26 +0000 > > From: CCP4 bulletin board <[email protected]> (on behalf of John R > > Helliwell <[email protected]>) > > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Citations in supplementary material > > To: [email protected] > > Dear Victor, > > I strongly support the stance that is in the Acta D Editorial. > > Manfred Weiss worked very hard assembling those details and over quite > > some time; he deserves our thanks. > > Greetings, > > John > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Victor Lamzin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > I would like to bring to your attention the recent Editorial in Acta Cryst D > > (http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2010/12/00/issconts.html), which > > highlights the long-standing issue of under-citation of papers published in > > the IUCr journals. The Editorial, having looked at the papers published in > > 2009 in Nature, Science, Cell and PNAS, concluded: > > 'almost half of all references to publications in IUCr journals end up being > > published in the supplementary material only... Not only does this mean that > > the impact factor of IUCr journals should be higher, but also that the real > > overall numbers of citations of methods papers are much higher than what is > > reported, for instance, by the Web of Science' > > Although this topic may seem to concern mostly methods developers, I think > > the whole research community will only benefit from more fair credit that we > > all give to our colleagues via referencing their publications. What do you > > think? > > Victor > > > > > -- > > Professor John R Helliwell DSc > > > > > > > -- > > Professor John R Helliwell DSc > > P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to > > Anastassis (Tassos) Perrakis, Principal Investigator / Staff Member > > Department of Biochemistry (B8) > > Netherlands Cancer Institute, > > Dept. B8, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands > > Tel: +31 20 512 1951 Fax: +31 20 512 1954 Mobile / SMS: +31 6 28 597791 > > > > > > > > -- > Professor John R Helliwell DSc > > P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to > Anastassis (Tassos) Perrakis, Principal Investigator / Staff Member > Department of Biochemistry (B8) > Netherlands Cancer Institute, > Dept. B8, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands > Tel: +31 20 512 1951 Fax: +31 20 512 1954 Mobile / SMS: +31 6 28 597791 > > > > -- Professor John R Helliwell DSc
