[UPS] request to forward info
herbert van de sompel
herbert.vandesompel@rug.ac.be
Thu, 02 Sep 1999 18:26:08 +0200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------6E5F4B905998DC82137FC8E3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Juan Miguel Campanario has kindly asked me to forward this information
to the UPS participants.
herbert van de sompel
--------------6E5F4B905998DC82137FC8E3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Received: from mserv.rug.ac.be (mserv.rug.ac.be [157.193.40.37])
by allserv.rug.ac.be (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA02040
for <hvdsomp@allserv.rug.ac.be>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:06:03 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from dulcinea.alcala.es (dulcinea.alcala.es [130.206.82.7])
by mserv.rug.ac.be (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA15838
for <herbert.vandesompel@rug.ac.be>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:06:01 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from [130.206.82.16] ([130.206.82.16])
by dulcinea.alcala.es (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA13840
for <herbert.vandesompel@rug.ac.be>; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:05:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:05:48 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: juan.campanario@pop2.alcala.es
Message-Id: <l03130302b3f43594ad58@[130.206.82.16]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: herbert.vandesompel@rug.ac.be
From: Juan Miguel Campanario <fscampanario@alcala.es>
Subject: Santa Fe meeting on UPS
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by allserv.rug.ac.be id OAA02040
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Prof
I am writing you concerning the UPS initiativa and the Santa Fe
meeting. Enclosed is a copy of a propossal to improve the propossals for
e-publishing.
I have
published this propossal in THE SCIENTIST, the journal edited
by Gene Garfield. As you can see, the main feature of this propossal
is that now REFEREES have to compete to obtain good papers. In our
current system, authors send papers and referees just wait passively
these papers. I have submitted my idea as a comments to the
e-biomed web page (http://www.nih.gov/welcome/director/ebiomed/ebiomed.htm).
I would greatly appreciate if you could distribute my propossal among
the people attending the Santa Fe meeting. I would also to be in touch
with the UPS initiative.
Sincerely
Juan Miguel Campanario
> Metajournal: Using new technologies to make scientific journals
> actively compete for good manuscripts
>
>
>
> Juan Miguel Campanario
>
> Grupo de Investigaci¢n en Aprendizaje de las Ciencias
> Departamento de Fsica
> Universidad de Alcalš de Henares
> 28871 Alcalš de Henares
> Madrid (Espaßa-Spain)
> Fax 34-1-8854942
> e-mail: fscampanario@alcala.es
> www.ciencias.alcala.es/giac In this document I
> dare to suggest proposals intended at carrying out a partial reform of
> existing scientific publishing process, yet, without risking the total
> disappearance of peer review system
> as it is known today. I have published a shorter version of this document
> in the journal The Scientist,
> 1997, Vol 11, Iss 10, May 12, pag 9 (Internet:
> http://165.123.33.33/yr1997/may/let1_970512.html)
> My ideas are geared at improving the processing techniques of
> manuscripts submitted for
> publishing. Simultaneously, I bring forth ideas, which would entice
> incentives, and consequently enhance
> as well as stimulate competition among academic journals for exceptional
> articles. The whole process can
> be easily accomplished by resorting to the new information tecnologies.
>
> Despite seemingly favorable acceptance, the peer review system is
> constantly under fire and
> criticism. Critics often argue that it is an excessively costly and time
> devouring method, where referees'
> agreement is most of times little higher than by chance (1). The system is
> vulnerable to misconduct,
> plagiarism and breach of confidentiality. Some of the most cited papers of
> all times were misinterpreted
> and consequently rejected by referees (2). Theories now widely accepted in
> biological, biomedical (3),
> economics (5) and other sciences were rejected and considered unacceptable
> by referees (4). At least
> eight articles that would eventually earn the Nobel Prize and fame for
> their authors were outrightly
> rejected during the initial inspection by reviewers (6). Other serious
> charge against peer review deals
> with the time that revision process consumes. In concrete, some surveys
> and studies claim that the
> refereeing of a given manuscript is as brief as a few hours (7, 8).
> However, the editorial reviewing
> process is a lengthy undertaking lasting from a few weeks to many months.
> No wonder that the waiting
> period in some leading and very competitive fields is considered as
> scandalous.
> Under the current system authors compete for journal space.
> Academic journals passively
> await the manuscripts but if authors send mediocre manuscripts they have
> to publish mediocre or even
> unacceptable papers in order to stay in business. The situation is
> favourable to leading journals since they
> keep receiving high impact papers.
> Many reform options have been suggested to stem off these
> shortcomings (1), and some
> authors call for its replacement (9). Actually, in some hotly disputed
> areas of research, such as particle
> Physics, e-mail is the prime channel of communication and few scientists
> wait to read papers in the "old"
> printed journals (10). If this system is extended to other fields, peer
> review could virtually disappear.
> Many scholars have suggested to use modern information technologies
> in the academic
> publishing system. There are some advantages, for example, it speeds up
> the editorial process and cuts
> the excruciating waiting period. Unfortunately, it appears that none of
> them propose deep changes of the
> peer review system. Thus, according the new propossals, new technologies
> would be used to play the
> same old tune. However, would it not be desirable that journals actively
> compete and search for good
> manuscripts via computerized networks?
> In short, a Central Facility could be made available to any scholar
> who wishes to
> communicate some relevant results about his research work (**). The
> Central Facility could be organized
> by disciplines or knowledge areas, in a similar way as the USENET facility
> installed on the Internet is
> organized by topics. The prospective author could submit an abstract or he
> could submit a full
> manuscript to the Central Facility. Journal editorial boards could
> routinely scan this Central Facility to
> seek out exceptional, high impact, and innovative manuscripts. As soon as
> one of these extraordinary
> manuscripts were located, editors could clue the authors to publish the
> masterpiece. The potential author
> could feel free to choose the most adequate journal in which to publish
> his scientific contribution. Thus,
> the individual task of shopping around for an acceptance could be
> eliminated for all practical reasons and
> left totally in the hands of interested journals. With an advent of this
> new system a new role may appear
> in science: the journal scanner or journal scout. The mission of this
> editorial board member would be to
> seek out and procure manuscripts for the journal. Of course, the new
> system I propose can perfectly
> coexist with the traditional editorial and peer review system: the usual
> medium status science could still
> rely on the current editorial process.
> As noted above, one obvious advantage is that this new system would
> speed up the
> processing of manuscripts. In addition, having many journal scanners
> scurrying the Central Facility for
> good manuscripts, the chances that significant, innovative and unorthodox
> but potentially revolutionary
> manuscripts get sidetracked by some unaware referee are lower. Another
> advantage is that, using some
> vigorous editorial policies plus good scouting teams, even modest journals
> could manage to fish out some
> good manuscripts and with some time and effort, improve their prestige and
> impact factors.
> In the ensuing paragraphs I shall intend to elaborate on the
> hindrances of proposed system. A
> first objection that comes to mind is that this system would create a
> significant division between high
> level science and low level science. However science is already a highly
> stratified activity and there is a
> clearly cut difference between the science published in leading journals
> and science published in medium
> or low impact journals.
> The second objection would probably concern plausible misuse of the
> system by fictitious
> authors who could send fake or plagiarized manuscripts to the Central
> Facility. However, under the
> current system anybody can send a fake or plagiarized manuscript to any
> journal through the usual mail.
> Actually, this was the technique used by Peters and Ceci and other
> investigators to ascertain the
> reliability and validity of peer review system (13). Some security
> measures could prevent misuse of the
> Facility. For example, each prospective author should send to the managers
> of the Central Facility a
> signed form authorized by the representatives of his employment. The
> managers of the Central Facility
> would then assign a public key code and a private one to the prospective
> author. Public and private key
> codes should not be confused with the typical passwords of a few
> characters. Actually, such public and
> private access codes are usually made up of hundreds of characters and
> they are managed by computer
> programs. These keys could be used to produce digital signatures. Using
> digital signatures, fake
> manuscripts (if any) would be easily detected and deleted.
> The third objection is undoubtedly the most serious one. It would
> be possible for anyone who
> reads the Net to steal, copy or use ideas obtained from the Central
> Facility. Again, public code
> cryptography may come to rescue. Using the Central Facility's public
> access code, the prospective
> author can encrypt the manuscript in a such way that only journal scanners
> in possession of the
> appropiate decoders could discern such text. Another solution consists of
> recording the identity of journal
> scanners who read a given submission thus making that person responsible
> for security of submitted
> paper. In addition, authors could choose not to encrypt their
> contributions, so, the priority over their
> discoveries could be fully recognized and publicly registered. Any
> detected plagiarism or theft of ideas
> could be managed in the similar way as in the present editorial system.
> Given that the processing time
> would be greatly reduced, there would be fewer chances for abuse or misuse
> of privileged information
> by journal referees while the manuscripts are being evaluated. Any other
> attempts of breaking into the
> Central Facility by hackers or intrusionists, could be easily detracted
> with efficient management policies.
> This new system would also make referees more accountable for their
> actions and
> commitments. In the past there have been suggestions that referees sign
> their reports thus become solely
> responsible for entrusted reviews (1). Some disadvantages of this approach
> are patent. For example,
> referees could be pestered or even threaten by irritated authors, etc.
> Digital signatures could help to
> resolve this catch-22 situation. A given referee could "sign" his report
> and still preserve his anonymity.
> Using the public key code of a given referee, any author could verify that
> this referee actually wrote a
> given report, a fact which even the referee in question would not be able
> to deny (13). Referees' reports
> could be logged into an electronic journal (The Journal of Referee
> Reports) and made available to
> authors for a routine access (6). Perhaps with time, authors would be able
> to recognize efficient,
> knowledgable and helpful referees. Maybe then they could be appointed by
> journal editors to serve as
> special scout force or scanners, qualified to screen all incoming
> scientific contributions. Nevertheless the
> decision to reveal his identity would then become a sole prerogative of
> the referee. Another possibility
> exists, anybody could serve as a free lance referee to judge contributions
> that were to be sent to the
> Central Facility in an open format. Will ever highly qualified free lance
> referees perform better than
> journal referees?
>
> Acknowledgments: I acknowledge the help by Jerry Keller in writing this
> manuscript
>
> References
>
> 1. Cicchetti, D.V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and
> grant submissions: A cross-
> disciplinary investigation The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14,
> 119-186 (1991).
> 2. Campanario, J.M. Have Referees Rejected some of the Most-Cited
> Papers of all Times?
> Journal of the American Society for Information Sciences, 47,
> 302-310 (1996).
> 3. Campanario, J.M. Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is
> hard to publish papers that
> area later highly cited Social Studies of Science, 23, 342-362 (1993).
> 4. Nissani, M. The plight of the obscure innovators in Science Social
> Studies of Science, 25,
> 165-183 (1995).
> 5. Gans, J.S., Shepherd, G.B. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected
> classic articles by leading
> economists Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 165-179 (1994).
> 6. Campanario, J.M. Commentary on Influential Books and Journal
> Articles Initially Rejected
> Because of Negative Referees' Evaluations Science Communication,
> 16, 304-325 (1995).
> 7. Jauch, L.R. Wall, J.L. What they do when they get your manuscript:
> A survey of Academy
> of Management reviewer practices Academy of Management Journal, 32,
> 157-173 (1989).
> 8. McNutt, R.A., Evans, A.T., Fletcher, R.H. The effects of blinding
> on the quality of peer
> review JAMA, 263, 1371-1376 (1990).
> 9. Horrobin, D.F. The philosophical basis of peer review and the
> suppression of innovation
> JAMA, 263, 1438-1441 (1990).
> 10. Taubes, G. Publication by electronic mail takes Physics by storm
> Science, 259, 1246-1248
> (1993).
> 11. Campanario, J.M. The journal Scout, The Scientist, 11, 9
> 12. Peters, D.P., Ceci, S.J. Peer-review practices of psychological
> journals: The fate of
> published articles, submitted again The Behavioral and Brain
> Sciences, 5, 187-195 (1982).
> 13. Diffie, W. The first ten years of public-key cryptography
> Proceedings of the IEEE, 76, 560-
> 577, (1988).
>
> *******************************************************
>
> The journal scout
> (Campanario, Juan Miguel, 1997, The Scientist, Vol 11,
> Iss 10, 12 May pag. 9)
> (Internet: http://165.123.33.33/yr1997/may/let1_970512.html)
>
> I propose a partial reform of the existing scientific publishing process.
> My proposal aims to improve the techniques for manuscript processing and
> to stimulate competition among journals for exceptional articles.
>
> Despite its seeming widespread acceptance, the peer-review system is
> constantly under fire and criticism. Critics argue that it is excessively
> costly and time-consuming. The system is vulnerable to misconduct,
> plagiarism, and breach of confidentiality. Some of the most cited papers
> in the history of science, now widely accepted, were previously rejected
> by referees. At least eight articles that would eventually earn the Nobel
> Prize for their authors wereinitially rejected outright by reviewers (J.M.
> Campanario, Science Commuication,16:304-25, 1995). Although
> refereeing usually involves only a few hours, thewhole process delays
> publication excessively. Indeed, the lag in somecompetitive fields is
> considered unacceptable (R. Roy, The Scientist, Sept 6,1993, page 11).
> Under the current system, authors compete for space in high-prestige
> journals. Most other lesser journals passively await manuscripts, and
> many gladly accept mediocre manuscripts in order to stay in business. The
> situation favours leading journals, since they receive most of the
> high-impact papers. Reforms have been suggested to overcome the afore
> mentioned shortcomings (D.V.Cicchetti, Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
> 14:119-86, 1991). Unfortunately, none of the suggested reforms involves
> fundamental changes in the peer-review system. For example, computer
> networks speed up the editorial process but do not permitjournals to
> compete for good manuscripts in real time.I suggest the creation of a
> central facility, or metajournal, organized by discipline or specialty,
> similar to Internet USENETs. Authors would submit an abstract or a full
> manuscript to the metajournal. Journal editorial boards would routinely
> scan the metajournal to locate potentially innovative manuscripts. Editors
> would then contact authors about publishing the article. If more than one
> offer is made, the author would choose the journal in which to publish.
> The task of shopping around could be eliminated and left totally in the
> hands of interested journals. The new system would inspire a new role in
> science: thejournal scout or journal agent who would seek out manuscripts
> for journals.Journal scouts should be real experts in their fields and should
> be able toconvice editors that candidate papers are worthy of publication.
> Thus, journal scouts would act as literary agents. Successful performance
> in locating goodmanuscripts might even be taken into account for tenure
> and promotion, just as being appointed as a referee today is considered
> meritorious.With many journal scouts looking for good manuscripts, the
> chance that a significant publication with unorthodox but innovative ideas
> would be delayed bya single biased referee would be minimized. In many
> cases, authors might bewilling to publish in less prestigious journals that
> would agree to prompt publication. This might eventually boost the impact
> of these journals. The best safeguard against plagiarism or theft of ideas
> is open discussion in the metajournal for scrutiny by journal agents. In
> addition, any scientist could volunteer to serve as a freelance referee, and
> all commentswould be made available to authors. The metajournal could
> easily coexist with the "normal" scientific publishing system in which
> authors send theirmanuscripts to traditional journals.
>
> *******************************************************
>
>
Juan Miguel Campanario
GRUPO DE INVESTIGACION SOBRE EL APRENDIZAJE DE LAS CIENCIAS
Departamento de Fisica http://www.uah.es/otrosweb/giac
Universidad de Alcala
28871 Alcala de Henares TEL 34-91-8854926 Fax 34-91-8854942
Madrid (ESPANA-SPAIN) fscampanario@alcala.es
---------------------------------------------
A solas mi vida paso, ni envidiado ni envidioso.
--------------6E5F4B905998DC82137FC8E3--