Creativity in the review of science

Abstract

Preamble Science is fundamentally a creative pursuit. At every step of the process, novel ideas that are useful to the scientific task at hand are employed—the very definit-ion of creativity (Runco and Jaeger 2012). In a recent commentary on novelty and editorial peer review, it was proposed that novelty be abandoned as a criterion assoc-iated with decisions by editors to reject (Arnqvist 2013). I find this a challenging proposition for at least two reasons. Novelty is important. Editors are useful. I high-ly value the creative aspects of what we do. I do not restrict this assessment of novel and useful to the inter-pretation proposed by the authors but apply the search for this criterion to the application, visuals, statistics, and integration of different ideas that in their combin-ation become novel like hybrid vigor. Importantly, creativity research is an extensive and well-established field. Training (Graham et al. 2012, Ha 2006, Scott et al. 2004), environment (Hunter et al. 2009), testing (Ander-son et al. 2004, Kim 2008, Kuncel et al. 2007), and self-versus non-self ratings (Ng and Feldman 2012) provide clear guidelines and opportunities for effectively using creativity in peer review. Ecological editors may be chasing novelty based on intuition, and I recognize that there is variation in editors just as there is in any set of reviews by external referees, but this does not, however, directly implicate the loss of novelty or creativity as an important consideration when reviewing. On the con-trary, perhaps we should embrace it, improve how we evaluate it, formalize it, and place it in its appropriate context. Solutions Improving peer review has been discussed extens-ively (Allesina 2012, Couzin-Frankel 2013, Fox and Petchy 2010, Hauser and Fehr 2007, Lortie et al. 2007, Scott 2007, Ware 2008). Transparency, accountability, and clear sets of guidelines are all needed (Scott 2007). Checklists associated with other elements of best sci-ence could be developed for fit or niche of each journal, including how it values and vets creativity. Over-interpretation bias by authors is very real (Arnqvist 2013, Charlton 2004, Jone 2009, Lortie and Dyer 1999). Nonetheless, self-reporting of creativity is on average more accurate than external assessments (Ng and Feld-man 2012). A sensible strategy would be to move some of this reporting from within the publication to the details associated with the submission. Imagine if authors did some of the review for editors and submitted this online. Friendly review and collaborative writing involve this level of introspection and dialogue. Formalize this similar to versioning tools such as GitHub and include it with the submission (Box 1). The authors could then self-report the novelty of the paper and briefly explain. This would make the job of the editor much easier and facilitate identification of true novelty versus over-interpretation. It would also simplify publications to some extent. Many evidence-based medicine journals have categories of textboxes to this effect in the final publication. Ecology and evo-lution could adopt similar approaches to reduce un-necessary interpretation included in the discussion and abstract, but still provide an easy mechanism for readers to access the creative highlights. More broadly, I propose a broader shift to consider-ing creativity instead of novelty, and actively applying this to peer review itself. Peer review has not changed much since its invention (Couzin-Frankel 2013). We should begin to be more creative in the review process itself (Davidoff 2006, Koonin et al. 2006), and editors are perfectly positioned to lead this initiative— particularly because there is every indication that there is already some degree of 'experimentation' (Cooke and Lapointe 2012). Novelty is important. Editors are This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.