Should reviewers in science remain anonymous? In peer-reviewing papers? What about reviewing grant applications?
This year marks the 350th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Society in London and, with that, arguably, the start of the modern scientific establishment, including the principle of peer review.
Yet, thanks to the ‘climate gate’ e-mail controversy (see here for the Guardian’s special investigation), that establishment has probably never been more shaky.
Recent days have also seen stem cell researchers accuse some colleagues and journals of blocking publication of some research. In a New Scientistreport one researcher in the field, Prof Robin Lovell-Badge allowed that:
“It’s all done in secret, so it’s very hard to gather information”
On the plus side, the public now knows that science is just like any other human activity: with egos and jealousies and all that goes with people defending their own little patch.
And today the stakes in science are very high: multi-million-dollar grants that will make (or, if not granted, break) a career; priority for a patent; and of course, prestige.
One of the tenets of peer review is that reviewers remain anonymous. Yet climate gate and the stem cell research accusations mean this must now be questioned.
Worrying exchanges among climate change reviewers, quoted recently in the Guardian by Fred Pearce, include:
“Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to -support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please.”
And:
“If published as is, this paper could really do some damage . . . It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically . . . “
Given that the authors of papers are identified — and it would be impossible to hide an author’s identity — shouldn’t reviewers be obliged to stand publicly over their opinions? Over any delay they took in reviewing a paper, that might be construed as obstruction? Rather than hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
And, if in journal reviewing, should this not also happen in assessing grant applications? Which are arguably as or more important than publishing.
There are, these days, too many vested and competing interests in research.
Much has been made in recent years about public access to journals, especially for research which is publicly funded.
A more fundamental question is surely researchers’ access to space in those journals, so that the public has something to read.
[...] From Mary Mulvihill: [...]