Brain Research 886 (2000) 1–4
www.elsevier.com / locate / bres
Interactive report
1
Publishing (whatever that means) neuroscience in the new millennium
*
Floyd E. Bloom
Department of Neuropharmacology, The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
Accepted 1 August 2000
Abstract
The World Wide Web and other forms of digital communication have led some to predict the demise of printed journals. In my experience, it is clearly demonstrable that scientific articles can be more efficiently reviewed and edited by digital document sharing. Nevertheless, high quality print journals will remain the preferred scholarly venue for authors’s best works for some time to come. However, while innovative means to share raw data, validate observations, and disseminate scientific information are emerging, no system of ‘publishing’ will serve the community optimally unless the ethical behavior of human scientists can be maintained and appropriately rewarded. 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
1. The review of scientific manuscripts The following personal observations are based on my experiences as the editor or reviewer for several scientific The participants in this third Brain Research Interactive journals, including my service for the last 5 years as Conference are among the most experienced readers of Editor-in-Chief at SCIENCE.
electronic resources for scientific content. Yet unques-tionably, almost all of them are still enmeshed in a process of scientific manuscript submittal to their favorite journals
that has been the standard for more than 200 years. 2. The review of scientific manuscripts can be wholly
Conventionally, an author submits a manuscript to a electronic
journal by delivering it to that journal’s editor. The editor,
having decided through various means, often introspective- Until quite recently, each of the steps of the scientific ly and subjectively — that the paper would be suitable for manuscript review process — submittal, review, revision, that journal’s mission, then ponders several questions. Who acceptance and eventual transmittal to the publisher — is a peer of this author, in content area, in technique and required physically transporting documents, tables and when possible in experience? Which reviewers should be figures from one player to another). For the past 3 years, avoided for competitive conflicts and past disputes? How Warren Young and I have been conducting an experiment much of the submittal’s data can the editor expect the with Elsevier Scientific Publishing in which this entire reviewer to examine in detail? For example, should the process is conducted electronically through the World statistical conclusions be re-calculated? Should all the raw Wide Web without any hard copied materials, and without data from which the observations to be reported were any physical manuscript being required. The SMART extracted be made available to the reviewers? In short, process (System for Manuscript Review and Authoring what does the editor need to know to decide whether to Technology) and the required authors’ transmittal module
accept or reject a submittal. are available on the Web at the URL
http: / / smart.scripps.edu:8000 / smart.html. Those who have ]]]]]]]]]]]]
provided manuscripts for the special issue of Brain Re-search reporting this Conference will have used it.
1 For our work in reviewing submittals for Brain
Re-Published on the World Wide Web on 9 August 2000.
search Interactive, and more recently for all sections of *Tel.:11-858-784-9730; fax:11-858-784-8851.
E-mail address: fbloom@scripps.edu (F.E. Bloom). Brain Research, my editor’s choices of peer reviewers has
2 F.E. Bloom / Brain Research 886 (2000) 1 –4
been aided by searching a cumulatively accreting database 4. Human beings: the soft spot in the electronic
of qualified and self-declared reviewers on the basis of future
keywords in their areas of content and technical expertise.
A useful feature of the system in my view is the use of the Almost all aspects of the scientific manuscript and major themes and topics headings from the Society for review process can be accelerated by digital transmittal of neuroscience’s annual meeting abstract submittal guide- manuscripts, illustrations, reviews, and revisions between lines to link the content of submittals to scientists par- authors, editors and reviewers. However, in order to ticipating in those categories of research. Communications maintain the apparent quality of their journal, editors seek between editor, reviewers and authors are all achieved the most wise reviewers on the basis of their past per-electronically through secure exchanges on the internet, formance and for their scientific reputations as scientists. and by e-mails. Accepted papers are eventually transmitted Often reviewers in ‘hot’ areas of science may be in great to the publisher, posted on their journal Web site within a demand for reviews by many different journals. Reviewers few days, and eventually printed in the appropriate section working in relatively quiet research fields may also be in of the journal Brain Research (with unlimited use of color equally intense demand because the pool of qualified
plates). reviewers is quite small.
Other systems for electronic submittal and review are Regardless of the reasons, only the most dedicated already in operation with independently developed soft- academic scholars undertake to review. Editors with whom ware in several journals including Astrophysics and at I have conferred will generally acknowledge their own SCIENCE (see http: / / www.submit2science.org). The jour- astonishment at how often requests to review by experts ]]]]]]]]] are rejected. Often such rejected invitations are in fact nal Pediatrics, the Journal of Biological Chemistry and the
simply no responses with no return communication at all, a Journal of Neuroscience have also committed to digital
factor that frequently delays timely decisions on the only ‘publication’ of papers submitted conventionally to
acceptability of a submittal. their review process. Clearly, the review and the
dissemi-There are probably many possible reasons for participa-nation channels of scientific publishing can profit from
tion by those willing to join in the review process, but digital document sharing.
none have been studied scientifically. From my personal perspective, some factors are suggestive: past pleasure in the scientific publication process, respect for the scientific
3. Why do authors select certain journals for their review system, and anticipation of equally rigorous and
best papers? fair reviews in the future. Often the ‘best’ reviewers are under their own pressures, such as research, grants and The question of technological efficiency in the review their own papers.
process is but one element of the multi-faceted selection No matter how quickly manuscripts and reviews may be process by which authors decide the journal on which they digitally exchanged between editors and reviewers, the wish to bestow their latest manuscript. Authors select their major temporal sink remains the delays in return of useful journals on the basis of the past content of the journal in reviews from those who have agreed to review. Journals regard to a variety of factors in peer appreciation, timeli- with lesser reputations may suffer the most, since the ness of the manuscript selection and decision process, and needed reviewers will owe little allegiance to the journal, the overall quality of the appearance, publication, and and the quality of their reviews may reflect their judgement delivery of the journal. The reputation of the journal for its of that journal’s current and immediately past reputation. previous quality of papers and content is critical. How Delays in receipt of reviews with useful critical judgement often does it appear? Who else has published there? How may in turn delay the decision making, which in turn many subscribers does the Journal have? Is it listed in affects the journal’s aggregate reputation. All in all, major indices of publication? How many libraries carry prompt, high quality reviewing is the essential element of this journal? Is it listed in the National Library of the scientific manuscript review process, and the one most Medicine’s databases and noted by weekly indexing vulnerable to the vagaries of journal editor–reviewer
services? interactions.
Other aspects of peer appreciation include the speed with which its submitted papers are accepted for eventual
publication, and the quality of appearance of the final 5. To improve quality and speed of review requires
manuscripts and artwork. In short, authors select journals rewards for responsible conduct
for their published works based on the impact these
publications will have on their scientific reputation for Given the importance of reviewers in the scientific academic promotion and for support of their grant applica- manuscript review process, how can editors and their
F.E. Bloom / Brain Research 886 (2000) 1 –4 3
Monetarily, it is possible to provide free subscriptions to (http: / / www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov), initially has content from only three society-owned journals Molecular and reviewers. That reward will have the most value when an
Cellular Biology, the British Medical Journal, and the expensive journal is worthy of the subscription charge
Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences, (e.g., in terms of content quality, amount and timeliness of
Their original research articles, but not other items in production). However, free subscriptions may be
con-the published journals, are generally accessible online 4 strained by the goals of the publisher, whether they are
to 7 weeks after dissemination to subscribers. In commercial or not-for-profit. Dedicated scientists
review-addition, several new electronic journals are to be includ-ing for their society-owned journals may already be
ed in the archives of PubMedCentral (see http: / / www. subscribers as part of their membership fee. Generally, the
]]]] biomedcentral.com).
monetary value of a free subscription may well not reflect ]]]]]
The NIH-sponsered site will also include a way to post the time and effort required to review frequently. Editors
reports that have not been peer reviewed (called ePub-can offer reviewers prestige, by appointing them to visible
MedExpress) but have been screened by certified, but as editorial positions, or including them in annual lists of
yet unspecified volunteer groups. A recent conference on reviewers, but this notification my feel to reach the
Freedom of Information sponsered by the electronic pub-reviewer’s chairman or members of their appointment and
lishing firm BioMedcentral (formed in order to ‘give promotions committees. One incentive rarely practiced is
researchers the tools they need to publish their data quickly for editors to write to departmental chairmen to praise their
and easily on the web’; see http: / / www.biomedcentral. faculty member’s performance as a reviewer.
]]]]]]]] com / info / conference / summary.asp) is the latest round in Editors can offer reviewers some insight into their
]]]]]]]]]]
a debate that challenges the current system of society-decision making process by providing them copies of the
owned and commercial publishing based in part on the letters of transmittal from editor to author after the editor
peer review process. has read the reviewers comments. By showing reviewers
This viewpoint arises from three assumptions: (1) that a which kinds of assessment are most valuable in shaping a
large proportion of scientific research is paid for by public paper in need of revision, an editor can achieve several
money, (2) that a key motivation for scientists to ‘publish’ important goals. The editor can help educate reviewers to
is to communicate their work to others, and (3) that the the quality standards of the journal and to the sorts of
internet-distributed information technology can implement information that editors need to make their decisions to
free access to information. One prominent molecular accept or reject. Lastly, it should be possible in the near
biologist is quoted as asserting ‘‘If all journals disappeared term to offer potential reviewers, up-to-date and
com-tomorrow, would science just stop?’’ Such scientists and prehensive lists of pertinent bibliographic materials related
some academic institutional librarians are instigating high-to the manuscript under review. Whether any of these
ly revolutionary actions such as refusing to grant their possible rewards will be appreciated is also an experiment
creators copyright to the publishers, whether commercial in progress. Nevertheless, the reviewer has been the most
or society-owned, and to boycott journals that refuse to critical, and yet absolutely under-valued element of the
make the results of ‘primary science’ freely available. scientific manuscript review process. Rewarding good
Their views are not unlike the current public debates over reviewers for excellent performance is essential for
main-the ‘right’ to distribute electronically formatted music taining the quality of the review process, no matter how
freely to anyone with the required software regardless of quickly manuscripts are moved from authors to editors to
the creative works of the composers, musicians, and audio reviewers.
engineers.
Until there are convincing data to support or negate the assumptions on which such information sharing rights are
6. Is peer review a mandatory element of validating
based, it remains to be determined how eagerly scientists
the scientific literature?
wish to have access to non-peer reviewed information. So far, as I have written elsewhere (see http: / / www. In the summer of 1999, then — National Institutes of
]]]] Health (NIH) Director Harold Varmus’s proposal to create sciencemag.org / cgi / content / summary / 287 / 5454 / 801) I
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] an online electronic archive for biomedical research data remain unconvinced that the technological expediency of sparked intense debate within the scholarly community public preprint sharing before rigorous review is either over the best directions for the evolution of scientific desirable or constructive. Most scientists whom I know, publishing. The NIH proposal elicited many strong re- certainly all of the speakers in this Conference are already actions, both supportive and skeptical, but it began opera- overburdened with information and desire authentication tions in January, 2000. In the archive’s final form, par- by the most rigorous peer-review filters.
4 F.E. Bloom / Brain Research 886 (2000) 1 –4
The process shows no signs of abating. For example, readers includes a participating part of CrossRef called SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Re- ScienceDirect (see http: / / www.sciencedirect.com) and
]]]]]]]]] sources Coalition) have announced their own intent to Neuroscion for the neuroscience community (see mount online journals for the life sciences in order to http: / / neuroscion.com / ) with which Brain Research
Inter-]]]]]] reduce the costs of academic publication (see active will be linked.
http: / / www.BioOne.org, described as ‘‘ the new Web- In December 1999, the British Medical Journal opened ]]]]]]]
based aggregation of research in the biological, ecological a Web site explicitly devoted to ‘completed’ studies,
and environmental sciences’’. regardless of peer review status, to which research results
As automated research routines generate enormous from studies in clinical medicine and health can be posted amounts of data often screened by other automated sys- before, during, or after peer review to ‘allow researchers to tems, a need emerges to allow others to explore the share their findings in full, for free, and as soon as their contents of the data warehouses. But such data sets are still studies are complete.’ At least 24 other journals have far from the norm in neurosciences, and are far from solid declared themselves willing to consider such preposted evidence. The prospect of finding the ideal solution to papers, although many journals consider web posting to satisfy all publishers, disciplines, societies, librarians, and, constitute ‘publication’ and thus no longer ‘original’. As most importantly, the community of researchers now stated at its site, the British Medical Journal aspires to seems remote. Many fundamental questions remain. serve clinical medicine online much as the Los Alamos Nevertheless, the often-expressed desire for improved ePrint archive (http: / / xxx.lanl.gov)] serves as a direct access to the body for traditionally reviewed and published submittal route to these and other journals willing to take information has nevertheless led to proliferation of alter- preposts.
native proposals to access the literature, perhaps even more usefully.
PubSCIENCE (http: / / pubsci.osti.gov / index.html), from 7. Conclusion: societies and their members must take
the U.S. Department of Energy, began in October 1999 to responsibility for the integrity of their scientific
facilitate access to peer-reviewed literature in the physical literature
sciences and other energy-related disciplines. Users of this
service can search a large database of recent literature, and No matter what the future may bring in terms of new then can be linked to the originating journals, with final modes of research information and dissemination, the access dependent on subscriber status. Many publishers are integrity of the scientific enterprise rests upon the accuracy making access to their older (e.g., 1 year or older) and timeliness with which scientists exchange their find-publications freely available even to non-subscribers as a ings with their colleagues globally. Scientific societies means to acquaint new user with their quality and perhaps were explicitly created to facilitate these exchanges and to interest them in submitting papers in the future. serve as a quality control filter on who may or may not be In November 1999, a cooperative agreement was credentialed as to being this or that category of scientist. It reached between leading commercial publishers and two would therefore seem natural for scientific societies to take scientific societies (the American Association for the the responsibility for elevating the standards of data Advancement of Science and the American Institute of content and rigor communicated by and to their members, Physics) to give subscribers access to more than 3 million covering wider and wider ranges of information through full-length electronic documents across thousands of jour- alliances with similar societies. Scientific societies can also nals, including the latest issues without delay. An esti- establish norms for the indoctrination of potential future mated half million new articles will be added annually. members by enhancing the mentoring powers of their Crossref (http: / / www.crossref.org) will be run by a not- members, seeking a higher and uniform basis for training
]]]]]]]
