|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | |||||
First published online January 10, 2008
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/jcs.023978
Sticky Wicket |
|
We need to talk. Something has been happening in biomedical science that I think should not, and I want to try to put a stop to it because it is ruining our lives. I know it's ruining my life. So sit down.
Right now, I'm directing this to the scientists who have reached the stage in their careers where they are being asked by the editors of journals to review manuscripts. (This might also extend to grant applications, but I hope not.) The rest of you, listen in, because if it doesn't relate to you now, it will soon.
Here's what's going on. I am asked to review a paper that represents months, or perhaps years, of hard fought research, and I agree. (By `I' I mean `you', because I never, ever do the next thing.) Having agreed, I realize that I'm too busy, or too lazy, or otherwise disinclined to actually do it, so I hand it off to someone in my lab to do. I justify this as a training exercise, and not only will my student or postdoc (or the guy from down the hall) gain experience, but I won't have to bother with it. So they do it, the reviews are sent in, and if the paper is salvageable, we might get it back for my trainee to go over again.
Now you're going to tell me that you always go over the reviews your trainees write, so no harm is done. Stop it. I know you never rewrite it based on your careful evaluation of the paper you didn't read; you just send it in if it seems competent (or have them do so, using your password on the website, because it's easier). And if it's a little harsh (and it is, as we'll see) you figure it's okay, because all your papers are reviewed with similarly harsh critiques. Sorry, but this is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Cut it out!
Why is it wrong? First of all, the editor asked you to do it, as an expert in the field. Your review carries weight precisely because of your expertise, not only in the area but also in what a paper should contain to allow a solid set of conclusions that impact on the field. But you didn't actually read it, someone else did, someone without your experience (otherwise, they wouldn't be training in your lab). But you put your name and the weight it carries on it anyway.
As an expert, you might have felt that it was pretty good, and said so. Sure you might have identified real deficiencies, and would have balanced them against the contributions. You might have noted where the authors could have improved the conclusions to have more impact, and made suggestions for how and why these could be valuable. All of which requires a level of self-confidence that you – hopefully – have, and which makes it possible to note when the work is actually pretty well done.
And this is what is almost certainly missing in your proxy. No matter how good the work is, your trainee approaches it like a journal club project, starting with the supposition that any critique must involve first pointing out what is wrong. They search for alternative explanations, no matter how unlikely, and demand additional (and often bizarre) controls. They devise extensions of the conclusions and demand further tests. And failing that, they rely on the simple practice (to show how good they are) of thinking of lots more experiments that could be done. Oh, and they find all the typos.
So we authors get back a critique of our paper with pages of armchair experiments, and as far as the editor knows, these are things that you – the reviewer and recognized expert – felt were essential. Yes, I can write a rebuttal, explaining why the suggestions are so much busy work, but it will go back to your proxy. So I'm not arguing with the editor, or even you, but with someone who may well have no real appreciation of the difference between `more' and `necessary' and probably lacks the self-confidence to be able to admit it.
"Oh come on!", you say. "Mole, are you telling us that our trainees can't gain experience by critiquing papers? How are they supposed to learn?" No, I'm not saying that. I regularly give manuscripts to my trainees to read and evaluate, and I go over their critiques with them. But I've always already read and reviewed the paper and submitted my review before this–always.
Okay, not always. Sometimes I'm really too busy, and someone in my lab would, in fact, do a good job in my opinion. So when that happens, I write to the editor and suggest that this person be the reviewer. Even if the editor suggests that yes, I can hand it to my proxy, I ask that the journal contact my trainee directly. That way, the editor knows who actually did the critique and (this is important) the real reviewer gets the credit for a job that was hopefully well done. I'm available to help out, but the editor understands the limitations of the reviewer and can intervene if necessary.
Please don't review by proxy. Please don't pretend that the review your trainee wrote is what you would have done anyway. Don't put the weight of your name behind a critique you didn't write, of a paper you didn't read. Yeah, I'm talking to you.
So just stop it. Editors should establish this as a principle (by contrast, some have gone so far as to request that "you or someone in your laboratory" review a paper – this is in completely the wrong direction) and they should demand that, if the reviewer wants to hand off a paper, they know who did the critique and communicate directly with this person. But if the editors don't do this, it doesn't give you permission to pass off your trainees' work as yours. It's killing us. It's killing me.
There, I'm glad I got that off my chest. As my wonderful friend, Professor Mongoose, once noted, "A fool can ask more questions than a wise person can answer." So can a graduate student.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
