A recent post asked questions about peer review. In my opinion, there are many stages and instances of peer review: Author level: 1) What question(s) is worthy of the time needed to get to the manuscript stage? 2) To what journal do I submit the manuscript (next)?
Editor stage: 3) Is a manuscript worthy of being passed on to an Associate Editor? If not, reject without review. Associate Editor (AE) stage: 4) Is a manuscript worthy of being sent out for review? If not, reject without review. If so, seek reviewers. Reviewer stage: 5) Does the paper seem to be worth my time such that I agree to review? 6) If I agreed to review, does the paper seem correct and interesting? AE stage: 7) Did the reviewers find errors? 8) Were the reviewers enthusiastic about the question? 9) AE makes a decision. Editor stage: 10) Consider the above and make a decision. Author stage: 11) If not accepted, are the reviews indicating something positive for that journal, a different journal, or the trash bin? Assuming the manuscript is in print, Reader stage: 12) Does the manuscript say something interesting enough to cite? 13) Does the manuscript say something so wrong that it needs refuting? I could probably parse this process out in more detail, but my point is that to emphasize the reviewer stage is to de-emphasize the responsibility of all the other parts to the scientific review process. No stage is perfect in its decisions and errors are inevitable. In my Assoc. Editor role, I often come up with a set of 4 or 5 reviewers who are the perfect people to see a paper, but either the journal review software says they're not available or they are unable to commit the time to review the manuscript. What then? The process has to rely on people who are farther away from being perfect for the manuscript at hand, people trying to do a good job on something farther from their expertise, but making the review more susceptible to imperfect decisions (through no fault of their own). All stages are jointly responsible in the scientific process, but none moreso than the author(s) themselves. Don't put all the blame or credit at the reviewer stage. Finally, emphasize to nonscientists that just because something is in print in a journal, a book, or a newspaper, it doesn't mean that it is scientifically sound. Will Wilson Duke University
