Given the considerable discussion on Ecolog regarding the strain on the scientific review process, I thought I would let the listserv know that my co-author and I have a paper in press at Trends in Ecology and Evolution (published online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.01.012) on the matter that will be published in the April issue. The paper is entitled "Reduce, reuse, recyle scientific reviews". An unpublished abstract for the paper is below. I hope that it will stimulate interesting discussion and improve the efficiency and quality of scientific review.
Best wishes, Jason Rohr Abstract:We propose that the well-documented strain on the scientific review process could be partly alleviated if we recycle rather than throw- away scientific reviews. We propose that, after having a manuscript or grant proposal rejected, authors would decide whether or not to forward the reviews, and a detailed response to the reviews, to a subsequent journal or granting agency. The journal or granting entity would then ideally consider the previous reviews and either request fewer reviews than they would if previous reviews were not provided or make an editorial/funding decision based solely on the supplied reviews and revisions. Recycling reviews 1) increases the efficiency of the review process, 2) uses rather than ignores the expertise and effort of the previous reviewers, editors, and grant panels, 3) lowers the workload of subsequent review processes, 4) reduces the time to publish, 5) allows researchers to spend more time doing science than tinkering with manuscripts and grants, 6) reduces the likelihood that grant panels conflict over a proposal, and 7) requires no obvious change to the infrastructure of scientific review. In sum, we argue that review recycling will have distinct positive impacts on the efficiency and quality of the scientific review process, unique to alternative approaches to enhancing the review process, such as economic-based and open-access- commenting models.
