|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | |||||
First published online April 3, 2008
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/jcs.029637
Sticky Wicket |
|
Dear Mole,
Yep, IMO you're absolutely correct about reviewing by proxy (J. Cell Sci. 121, 129-130). Not acceptable – ever. But look for the reasons why – has the non-reviewer become too (self?) important or successful (?) to do the review? How could this be? What is more important than making sure that the published data and hypotheses in your field are correct/exciting/inspirational/controversial/all of the fore-going? Maybe writing a ton of grants and other papers leaves too little time to review the work of others? And, let's face it, if it's another salami-sliced minimal contribution as-we-had-to-get-something-published, who can blame them? Let's publish fewer papers, but make them better! It's unlikely to be a smart career strategy...
How did the non-reviewer become so blasé? I'd speculate that they were middle aged. The young PI would be busy – but still honoured to be asked – and would be grateful to know what's going on that is not yet published. The near-retirement PI most probably has learned that it really IS that important, and may even still have that inspirational enthusiasm (if it hasn't been quashed by the grant/paper treadmill, statins, SSRIs, hair loss, etc.). I'm going to bet that the most likely non-reviewer is middle aged, with a large-ish lab, a ton of commitments, and a fear of the competing labs (or failing to keep a lot of grants going). The the non-reviewer is likely to be more focused upon their own situation than the health of the field they are in. They have surely exchanged the excitement of science for the success of a large group and lots of invitations (and that might be the right choice for them). How did it come to this? Well, you get what you deserve, or at least whatever strategy is successful given the selective conditions.
And finally, thank you for continuing to pen such truly excellent columns.
Caledonian Caveman
Dear Caveman,
How nice to hear from you! Yes, I was convinced by your analysis; so, to confirm what you say I did an extensive research poll with suitable controls and multifactorial analysis (I asked around at a faculty dinner during cocktails). I was surprised to find that some of the worst offenders were my junior colleagues, who defended the practice because (and this is the insidious part) they had reviewed papers for their mentors. This chain-of-laziness (and that's what it is, just laziness) had to stop, so I contacted a friendly editor of a weekly journal (one of those with really soft pages), suggesting that they consider instructing reviewers to only agree to review if they will personally do it (and I gave the arguments we have both used). To my lasting chagrin, the response was that proxy reviews were just fine, as she had done them for her mentor when she was a post-doctoral fellow. Oh woe, are we.
Yes, we're all busy and, yes, we enjoy delegating jobs that we find unpleasant (or at least, inconvenient). But the buck has to stop, and I think it has to stop with whoever has agreed to do the review.
But meanwhile, I have 57 experiments to perform to address the `problems' with my latest paper submission. Maybe I can get the reviewer to do some of them...
Cheers,
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
