Author: Daniel Mietchen
Position: Postdoc
Institution: MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig
E-mail: mietchen@cbs.mpg.de
Additional Authors: Ulrich Pöschl, Group Leader, MPI for Chemistry, Mainz
Submitted Date: May 05, 2007
Published Date: May 7, 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 (H-F) touches upon an important aspect of the peer review system - the time required to obtain reviewers' comments. Penalty policies as suggested by H-F might be a way of minimizing delays, but the applicability of such concepts is questionable, as pointed out in other comments.

An alternative option are publishing schemes that allow to reconcile the seemingly contradictory demands for rapid publication on the one hand and for thorough peer review on the other, e.g. by dissecting the publication and review process into multiple steps including interactive public discussion. Such systems already exist, have proven to be practical, and are gaining popularity across different fields [1-5].

For example, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) has implemented the concept of Interactive Open Access Publishing and Collaborative Peer Review in six of their nine peer-reviewed journals [4]: In the first stage, manuscripts are immediately published as "discussion papers" on the journal's website, similar to preprints on arXiv, but only after passing a rapid pre-screening. These manuscripts are then subject to interactive public peer review for a period of eight weeks, during which the comments by designated referees and possibly by other interested members of the scientific community as well as the authors' replies are published alongside the discussion paper where they remain permanently archived and individually citable. In the second stage, manuscript revision and peer review are completed in the same way as in traditional journals and if accepted, final papers are published in the main journal.

Publishing, editorial, and citation statistics confirm the applicability of this concept. Only four years after the launch in 2001, the first EGU interactive open access journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), received the highest ISI journal impact factor [6] in its field (Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, 47 journals) and one of the highest in related multidisciplinary fields (Environmental Sciences, 140 journals; Geosciences, 129 journals) [5].

In these fields, the rejection rates of traditional journals with comparable impact and quality are typically above 50%, but the rejection rates at ACP are below 20% [2]. Obviously, the public peer review and discussion helps to deter authors from submitting low quality manuscripts, which relieves editors and referees from spending too much time on deficient submissions and thus provides a tangible solution to the issues raised by H-F.

Moreover, the public review guarantees that the referees' arguments are publicly heard and, if comments are openly signed, the referees can also claim authorship for their contribution (cf. comment by Rendall). Experience from ACP shows that referees appreciate the visibility of their work and usually deliver very careful and constructive public reviews. Up to approx. 50% also choose to sign their comments.

We think that public peer review and interactive discussion can and do provide strong positive incentives for reviewers that are unlikely to be achieved by penalty schemes.

[1] Pöschl, U., Interactive journal concept for improved scientific publishing and quality assurance, Learned Publishing 17:105-13, 2004.
[2] Koop, T., and Pöschl, U., An open, two-stage peer review journal, Nature Web Debate on Peer Review, 2006.
[3] www.economics-ejournal.or... www.biology-direct.com, www.plos-one.org
[4] www.egu.eu
[5] www.atmos-chem-phys.org
[6] Garfield, E., The meaning of the Impact Factor, Int J Clin Health Psychol 3:363-9, 2003.