Science Open Reviewed: An online community connecting authors with reviewers for journals

Abstract

Science is structured discovery. Progress requires public dissemination, pre-publication peer-review, and a rep-utation economy defined by the merit of the published product (Figure 1). Modern science, however, has be-come more like a mission for elitism, than a mission for discovery. Pre-publication peer-review filters are now used by many journals primarily as a censorship tool for editors to preserve and elevate journal impact factor and to compete with other journal editors for impact factor status (Aarssen 2012, Wardle 2012). This culture is now systemic within academia because it generates author addiction to chasing impact factor as a reputation metric, and review is blind in most cases, thereby protecting practices from scrutiny, accountability and improvement. Concealment of reviewer identity (known only to the editor) as well as the contents of their reviews (disclosed only to the author) has the earmarks of a secret society, where power in assigning merit— and granting permission—for publication in science is invested in a select few who are neither elected by, nor accountable to, the community of researchers. In many cases, paths of influence can be traced to vested interest (in elevating impact factor status) from profit-driven commercial publishers. In addition, reviewers are usual-ly voluntary, with no compensation and no significant reward for quality service, and so—combined with being able to hide behind anonymity—there is no deter-rent against biased and poor-quality reviews with draconian recommendations for rejection. Elitist editors commonly like this because they can use these negative reviews—combined with a claim of limited page space for (now outdated) paper publication—as justification for manuscript rejection in order to protect and inflate journal impact factor. Authors then become jaded, yet still with little choice but to remain addicted to chasing impact factor—thus raising susceptibility to academic misconduct, wasting reviewers' time (in the 'tragedy of the reviewer commons'), eroding reviewer incentive, and hence shrinking the pool of available and willing reviewers, especially good ones. All of it impedes the progress of science, both directly through poor practices and lag times, and indirectly through lost opportunities for discussion and feedback (Aarssen 2012). In this paper, we announce the launch of Science Open Reviewed, extending an idea introduced in an ear-lier IEE editorial (Aarssen and Lortie 2010). SciOR is an online registry service dedicated to peer-review practice involving optimal filters for the progress of science—as a mission for discovery, rather than a mission for elitism. Specifically, SciOR provides sup-port for extension and refinement of mechanisms and opportunities for: (1) increasing reviewer incentive and reputation rewards, and thus increasing the pool of available and willing reviewers; and (2) promoting transparent and accountable open peer-review, and thus limiting the incidence of biased and poor quality reviews often associated with blind reviewing.