Paper *accepted* in @eLife! Stellar job by Casper Kerrén, with support from dream team Sander van Bree & @b_j_griffiths.
https://www.biorxiv.org/node/2534276.external-links.html
I wanna use this opportunity to say this. Sure, I will miss the kick you get from an acceptance email. May future generations of scientists smile at the silly things (like acceptance letters) that made us happy in 2022…
That said, I am very ready for trying out the new @eLife system.
1/2 (trying first thread here)
The new system may not be perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction and will hopefully be a snowball for positive change in scientific publishing.
My experience with @eLife has been really positive over the years, as reviewer, guest editor & now author. Love the transparency of the review process (extremely helpful & constructive reviews on this paper too!), grateful they are trying out new ways.
end/2
@mariawimber @eLife Congrats on your paper! (this comment has nothing to do with your great work)
I want people to consider that the new eLife system consolidates power in editors who are not elected but chosen like magistrates of old, and the new system is not transparent because real decisions are now in review triage. Thus eLife is now likely even less transparent from the standpoint of who gets “published” or reviewed. This was not their intent, and I think their intent was good. We’ll see.
@AllenNeuroLab @eLife I had the exact same reaction to the editorial gatekeeping aspect, and it’s still my major problem with it. That said, I accept that a completely open preprint & reviewing system might be overwhelming and create tons of other unwanted dynamics. So maybe some gatekeeping & curating is needed, and at least it will be colleagues and experts in the field doing it?
@mariawimber @eLife I hear that and I know and respect many of the editors. But I do not like a feudal system where scientific power to decided is transferred through personal connections.
On review transparency, how can it transparent if their are no reasons given for triage and no public list given of all preprints that asked for review? There’s no accountability in this system without data being made available.
@AllenNeuroLab @eLife Good points. And I don’t like the concentration of power either but isn’t it already happening in the current system, PNAS being an extreme form? And in other journals the desk-rejection power is in the hand of non-academic editors who decide based on anticipated citations? I love the idea of public record of rejected submissions, never thought of that!
@mariawimber @eLife Yes, editorial decisions became the norm at for-profit models like Nature journals and the preferred model in private academic society journals (like PNAS) not too many years ago. We as scientists allowed this to happen and normalized it as an accepted form scientific decision making. We should not have accepted — it is unscientific. If eLife wants a better publishing system they need to deal with triage. Reviewers aren’t the problem as reviews are open to authors.
@AllenNeuroLab @eLife Fully agree on the issues, and open to alternative suggestions for a fair, democratic system that cuts out for-profit publishers. For now I see the eLife move as a step to a system that is curated by the scientific community, and where hopefully assessments by fellow scientists count more than big journal names.
Also, really appreciate the friendly disussion here!
@mariawimber @eLife Yes, thanks for the good discussion and congrats again on the paper. I simply disagree that the editors should be considered as representing the scientific community — it is really an elitism (or feudal model) of an editorial community where editorial titles are given by decree from other editors and power is now exclusively in secret triage with no accountability. I prefer a system that democratizes science. There are very simple things that can be done as suggested above.
@AllenNeuroLab @mariawimber @eLife There's plenty of people involved and consulted, so the decision to send a paper out for review at @eLife isn't secretive, or at least not more than at all other journals, if anything, much less so. And the goal is to determine whether we are able to generate constructive reviews. The only difference with the old system is that now there isn't an accept/reject at the end, instead just the reviews and a summary in the form of a succinct assessment.
@albertcardona @mariawimber @eLife I hear you but disagree with your characterization on what constitutes secretive. Why not publish a list of all papers that request review, a reason for the triage decision, and the people involved in that decision. That would be transparency by modern definitions. Otherwise, it remains a secret club.
@AllenNeuroLab @albertcardona @eLife I’m curious about people’s takes on this suggestion. It technically seems like a straightforward thing to implement, given eLife is already posting reviews on preprint servers like @biorxivpreprint. Provided, of course, authors are comfortable with the pain of public rejection…
@mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint That’s right, there’s a lot of unnecessary privacy that revolves around avoiding potentially embarrassing situations, and also as necessary steps to smoothly transition from the old system we all despise to the new one we are aiming for but haven’t quite arrived at yet.
That said, the new editorial policy at @eLife is very explicitly to only desk reject when the editorial board, after a consultation with actively practicing scientists (senior editors, BREs and others invited for that particular consultation), can’t find the expertise to generate constructive reviews. That’s all it means to be desk rejected at #eLife, so it doesn't have negative connotations for the authors, if anything, a positive: the authors are ahead of the field, or did something very new and original and beyond our means.
@mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint For completion: a desk rejection could also mean the manuscript is outside biology, or we’ve received way too many manuscripts at once and we can’t handle it—hopefully the latter won’t happen often.
@albertcardona @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint Interesting that in a system like this, finding enough experts who want to review a paper will be the main hurdle to getting published.
@mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint Wasn’t it always. Who ever liked “please return a review in 10 days”, from any journal? We all have day jobs, so to speak.
@albertcardona @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint Not meant as criticism just a thought. Most likely a fairer and more democratic hurdle than some current ones, with other scientists deciding which papers are interesting to review.
@mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife Thank you and indeed, that’s how I understood it: a very interesting thought. Scientific publishing rate-limited by the availability of scientists to review a manuscript.
To further remark, regarding transparency, that one can always post reviews anytime to a @biorxivpreprint manuscript. And that #ReviewCommons is no different than what @eLife is aiming at, except they don’t publish manuscripts, only reviews. Scientific publishing is evolving, and that’s @eLife raison d’être.
@AllenNeuroLab @mariawimber @eLife @biorxivpreprint That’s a good point, I don’t know. May have to do—but I don’t know—with a wise king approach to avoid group dynamics that revert to the status quo. After all, no system likes to be perturbed. And pushing a system off its comfort point often requires sustained, persistent action. Have you proposed it in one of @eLife town halls, or by email?
@albertcardona @mariawimber @eLife @biorxivpreprint I’ve communicated via Twitter with many editors. They do not seem interested in these issues. But I will continue to raise the issues for a better publishing environment for science.
@albertcardona @mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint
I have been thinking about it. Using a Mastodon instance like qoto.org can address this pain point.
@freemo what do you think?
Qoto.org allows a complete ecosystem of scientific publishing to be built within #fediverse. This is incredible. Sourcing peer reviewers on a platform like this would be easy IMHO.
@arinbasu @mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint @freemo It’s a people’s problem far more than a technology problem. But I appreciate the enthusiasm a lot, and frankly, inventing new approaches to scientific publishing is fair game and very welcomed.
@albertcardona @mariawimber @AllenNeuroLab @eLife @biorxivpreprint @freemo
Yes absolutely, it is a people's problem. To that end, if peer review process were to be situated where people _are_, that might be useful. At the moment, we have email requests, then a web form, and a submission process. How can we streamline it using federated media. I mean say the entire preprint paper is federated and peer reviewed and editors get the advantage of many eyes marking a paper. It's possible now with an open, widely embraced federated media.
@albertcardona @mariawimber @eLife @biorxivpreprint I appreciate that eLife is helping evolve the scientific publishing environment. I support that goal. But I don’t see why it would be hard to democratize it (elected editors and editor term limits) and make it transparent (publish all triage decisions). I haven’t heard a strong response to either suggestion.