Blind dates in sciences: dealing with rejection in peer review.
Blind dates in sciences: dealing with rejection in peer review.
复制标题
科学中的相亲：处理同行评审中的拒绝。
DOI：
10.1161/circresaha.113.302765
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
20.1
通讯作者：
Wang,Yibin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wang,Yibin
每个研究人员都记得他或她将手稿或提案提交给同行评审的那一刻。这真的就像去相亲一样。在不知道同行身份的情况下，我们经常在黑暗中等待答案，即我们最好的想法是否会得到宝贵的资金，或者多年的辛勤劳动是否会被一份有声望的期刊所认可。因为我们的学术成功，有时甚至生存能力都取决于这样的结果，等待可能是痛苦的。不幸的是，正如科学界任何一位经验丰富的成员都会警告你的那样，科学同行评审的结果主要是被拒绝。美国国立卫生研究院目前的资助水平意味着90%的申请将被拒绝，一些顶级期刊在提交的手稿中的拒绝率甚至更高。学习通过各种同行评审过程的概率提高技能已成为初级研究人员科学培训和教学课程的必修课。1然而，无论你认为自己准备得多么充分，现实是，只要我们选择从事科学事业，同行评议的拒绝就永远是这个职业的一个常数。因此，讨论如何使同行评审经验具有建设性而不是破坏性是有益的。在这篇文章中，我们将集中讨论手稿的同行评审过程，并由几个领先的科学期刊的编辑提供特别的见解。由于压倒性的负面裁决和被蒙蔽的大部分过程，作者的看法同行评审是黑暗和可疑的。根据Ho等人报告的在线调查，不到一半的作者认为生物医学期刊评审系统是公平的，只有四分之一的作者认为结果是科学合理的。许多作者将同行评审过程视为我们与他们之间的对抗性战斗，尽管几乎所有的同行评审员实际上都是同一科学界的成员。可以理解的是，对拒绝最常见的反应往往是情绪化的。作者经常以愤怒、防御和怀疑的语气快速反驳，因为他们假设负面评论者是不称职的、错误的或有偏见的，因为利益冲突。“这是一个常见的错误，”大卫纳博士，编辑在-
Every researcher remembers the moment when he or she sends in a manuscript or proposal for peer review. It is truly like going out on a blind date. Without knowing the identities of the peers, we often wait in the dark for an answer as to whether our best ideas will receive precious funding or years of hard labor will be recognized by a prestigious journal. Because our academic success and sometimes even viability depend on such an outcome, the wait can be excruciating. Unfortunately, as any seasoned member of the scientific community will warn you, the outcome of scientific peer reviews is dominated by rejection. Current funding levels at the National Institutes of Health imply that≈ 90% of applications will be rejected and some top tier journals see even higher rejection rates among submitted manuscripts. Learning the odds-improving skills to navigate through various peer review processes has become a required course of scientific training and teaching curriculum for junior investigators. 1 However, no matter how much you think you are prepared, the reality is, as long as we choose to pursue a scientific career, rejection from peer review will always be a constant in this occupation. Therefore, it is useful to discuss how to make the peer review experience constructive rather than destructive. In this article, we will focus our discussion on the peer review process for manuscripts, with particular insights provided by the editors of several leading scientific journals. With overwhelmingly negative verdicts and being blinded from much of the process, an author’s perception of peer review is expectedly dark and suspicious. Based on an online survey reported by Ho et al, 2 less than half of authors think that biomedical journal review systems are fair and only a quarter of them think that the outcome is scientifically justified. Many authors view the peer review process as an antagonistic battle between us and them, although almost all of the peer reviewers are actually members of the same scientific community. Understandably, the most common response to a rejection is often emotional. Authors frequently file quick rebuttals to protest the verdict in an angry, defensive, and suspicious tone based on the assumption that the negative reviewers were incompetent, erroneous, or biased because of conflict of interest.“This is a frequent mistake,” Dr David Eisner, Editor-in-