Author: Mario Albrecht
Institution: Max Planck Institute for Informatics
E-mail: mario.albrecht@mpi-inf.mpg.de
Submitted Date: April 18, 2007
Published Date: April 18, 2007
This comment was originally posted as a “Reader Response” on the publication date indicated above. All Reader Responses are now available as comments.

The correspondence by Hauser and Fehr addresses a common problem with peer review processes. Concerning their fourth point that journals might lose manuscripts from some of the more interesting scientists who may happen to be slow reviewers, I would not be surprised if those scientists are frequently senior authors and slow reviewers due to other important businesses related to science. Therefore, the proposed punishment procedure targeted at the primary corresponding authors might not affect them much, and there are normally alternative journals to submit manuscripts.

However, I am wondering whether all journals at least of the same publisher are regularly exchanging lists of good and bad reviewers. This exchange might already avoid many low-quality or slow reviews. I also suggest that editors always take their responsibility for timely reviews seriously. If the review is few days late, the editor or a member of the editorial office could phone the reviewer and set a final deadline. Phoning instead of repeated e-mailing might be quite effective and time-saving. If the reviewer still does not submit the review without good reasons, the editor should immediately contact another reviewer. This additional reviewer could be informed about the current situation and asked to agree with reviewing the manuscript within one week so that further delays are avoided.