N
E W S
O F
T H E
W
E E K
PEER REVIEW
Opting to exclude reviewers may have an
even more dramatic effect on a manuscript’s
success. Lowell Goldsmith, a dermatological geneticist at the University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the editor of the
Journal of Investigative Dermatology, and
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS—It’s the closest most sci- f ind that, compared to editor-suggested colleagues looked at 228 consecutive manuentists will come to picking their own jurors. reviewers, author-suggested reviewers script submissions to the journal in 2003.
Amid all the checklists, bibliographic infor- were more likely to recommend manu- The team found that the odds of acceptance
mation, and file-attachment instructions, the script publication (55.7% versus 49.5%) were twice as high for manuscripts for which
manuscript submission forms of many jour- and less likely to recommend rejection authors had excluded reviewers compared to
nals ask authors a simple question: Are there (14.4% versus 24.1%).
those whose authors had not done so.
any individuals you would like to suggest or
“Editors and authors can be confident “Excluding reviewers ends up being very,
exclude as potential reviewers?
that either group will do an adequate job at very important,” says Goldsmith. “People
Having a say over who will review one’s reviewing the manuscript,” says Schroter. know their assassins.”
work should be a good thing. Authors may “But editors should be a bit more cautious
What’s driving these numbers is not clear.
be better placed than editors to know who is about relying on the recommendations of If authors tend to suggest sympathetic
best qualified to evaluate their findings, and author-suggested reviewers.”
reviewers and exclude nitpicky ones, for
they may have valid reasons for keeping
Schroter’s findings are reinforced by a example, the findings could spotlight biases
sensitive results out of the hands of a close study conducted by journal consultant Eliza- in the peer-review process. Similarly, bias
competitor. Yet many decline to suggest beth Wager and colleagues at BioMed Cen- may be introduced by reviewers in journals
reviewers, and only a small percentage opt tral, an open-access publisher of online jour- at which reviews are not anonymous. Says
to exclude them.
nals. Wager’s team compared editor-chosen Wager: “Author-suggested reviewers don’t
That may change, thanks to the results of and author-suggested reviews submitted to want to be the person that killed their recomthree studies presented here last week at the 40 of BioMed Central’s journals. Using crite- mender’s last study.”
Fifth International Congress on Peer Review ria similar to Schroter’s, the researchers found
But David Nordstrom, an epidemiologist
and Biomedical Publication, organized by little difference in quality between the two at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities,
the Journal of the American Medical Asso- groups of reviews. And, like Schroter, they and an adviser on grant applications and peer
ciation and the British Medical Journal found that author-suggested reviewers were review, isn’t as cynical. “I take a fairly benign
(BMJ) Publishing Group. Either suggesting more likely to advocate manuscript accept- view,” he says: Author-suggested reviewers
or excluding reviewers, the studies show, ance (47% versus 35%) and less likely to rec- tend to be familiar with the author’s field and
can significantly increase a manuscript’s ommend rejection (10% versus 23%).
may be in a better position to recognize the
chances of being accepted.
potential impact of a paper. And
“The studies point out a
Haynes says that more-established
Peer-Review
Bias?
potential for bias in the peerresearchers, who may have the
review system,” says R. Brian
hubris to exclude reviewers, may
Editor-suggested reviewers
Author-suggested reviewers
Haynes, a clinical epidemiolalso have a better chance of getogist at McMaster University
ting manuscripts accepted.
in Ontario, Canada, and the
Are such author-tailored
Reject
editor of two clinical jourreviews
likely to increase?
14.4%
Reject
nals. “If that’s the case, this is
Matthias
Egger,
an epidemiolo24.1%
something we should be takgist at the University of Bern in
Accept
Accept
ing a closer look at.”
Switzerland and an associate ediResubmit
49.5%
55.7%
Journal editors who use
tor of the International Journal
29.9%
Resubmit
author-suggested reviewers
of Epidemiology, says it’s hard to
26.4%
tend to disagree about their
predict. Many authors are loath
value, says Sara Schroter, a
to exclude reviewers because it
senior researcher at the BMJ
goes against their ideal vision of
Publishing Group. So she
what science should be about, he
and colleagues compared
says: “Scientists like to believe
author-suggested reviews to
that personal factors shouldn’t
Reject
those solicited by editors at
play a role in science.”
10%
Reject
10 journals owned by the
At the same time, he says,
23%
Accept
company, including Heart,
there are valid reasons to single
35%
Accept
Tobacco Control, and BMJ
out reviewers. Some scientists
47%
itself. In a 9-month survey
hold grudges, Egger says. Others
Undecided
43%
of 788 reviews for 329 manmay have conflicts of interest or
Undecided
uscripts, the team found no
are just not qualified to evaluate
42%
significant difference in the
certain topics. So suggesting or
quality (as measured by
excluding reviewers may help
widely agreed upon criteria
limit bias rather than introduce it.
judged to be essential for a Choose wisely. Author-suggested reviewers are more likely to recommend “I’ve never excluded a reviewer,”
good review) or timeliness manuscript acceptance and less likely to advocate rejection than editor- he says, “but perhaps it isn’t such
of reviews between the two suggested reviewers, according to studies led by Sara Schroter (above) and a bad thing to do.”
groups. However, they did Elizabeth Wager (below).
–DAVID GRIMM
1974
23 SEPTEMBER 2005
VOL 309
SCIENCE
Published by AAAS
www.sciencemag.org
CREDITS (TOP ROW) S. SCHROTER ET AL.; (BOTTOM ROW) E. WAGER ET AL.
STUDY 2
STUDY 1
Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on August 7, 2012
Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can
Help Get Your Paper Published