Peer Review Neutrality
  Peer Review Neutrality
  • Home

Peer review neutrality

Update April 21st, 2015. 
After the set up of this webpage and the preparation of a collective resignation letter signed by more than 150 editors of Scientific Reports, some of the signing editors had a conversation with representatives of the Nature Publishing Groups (NPG) . The discussion was very constructive and on April the 20th, NPG sent an email to the editorial board of Scientific Reports  informing that the journal's fast-track trial came to an end  (20th April) and the fast-track option is no longer available. NPG also expressed its regret that they hadn’t discussed their plans with the Editorial Board in advance and acknowledged the concerns that had been raised in this web page and the collective resignation letter. The full text of the NPG communication is reported here.
In view of the NPG communications,  we consider that  the collective resignation letter is withdrawn and we look forward to a constructive dialogue with NPG on how to improve the journal and the peer review process. NPG will resume sending manuscript to all members of the editorial board. 
We thanks all the editors who signed the letter and the colleagues who have supported this initiative.  
Let's  keep working together for a better publishing system!


We are a group of academic editors very concerned about the possibility of Scientific Reports introducing a fast-track reviewing process for authors who choose to pay to get their paper reviewed in three weeks. After a highly frustrating email exchange with the editorial offices of Scientific Reports, (the most important questions we raised are not even mentioned) we have decided to voice our concerns and opposition   with the following letter.  We intend to submit this resignation letter to the Nature Publishing Group  unless the "pilot" test is put to an end and  Scientific Reports will engage in a meaningful discussion about the consequences of such editorial processes. 
Scientists member of the editorial board of Scientific Reports can add their signature at the bottom left of this page. If you are a scientists sharing our concerns you can add your name in the support form on the right.

To the Publishing Director, Nature Publishing Group/Palgrave Macmillan

Thank you very much for your reply concerning our inquiries about the introduction of the new pay-per-service fast-track submission on Scientific Reports.
Unfortunately, your reply is highly unsatisfactory, as we feel it does not address some of our major concerns.   We believe that a number of issues and a lack of transparency are implied by the use of a commercial third party, i.e., Rubriq.
  • Who are the peer review coordinators at Rubriq?
  •  What are their scientific and academic credentials?
  • Do they have the necessary expertise to assign reviewers?
  • Why is there only internal vetting of peer reviews?
Rubriq is paying reviewers for their timely service. Obviously this will introduce a peer-review market driven by profit and resources of publishing groups. 
It is not clear the consequences what will be even within Scientific Reports itself. Why should a scientist review a paper through the regular track when he/she can use their time to review a paper for a compensation? This will likely make the selection of reviewers in the regular track harder and slow down the overall handling of papers, except  in the fast-track. Thus, it will likely have the opposite effect of what is apparently intended, and it will create a two-tier system that discriminates on the basis of funding and resources. 

Most importantly, this process is truly threatening scientific and peer-review neutrality. A two-tier system is introduced that will differentiate and amplify the gap between scientist in high-income and low-income countries. It will introduce discrimination among senior and well-funded researchers and junior scientists that have yet to establish themselves and gather adequate funding. It will introduce publishing avenues with different speed, based on dollars, in the scientific competition. As some colleagues have pointed out in the past days, after the threat to “Internet-neutrality” we are now facing the threat to peer-review neutrality.

We are also very concerned about the fact that even though we invest a lot of time and effort into making Scientific Reports a better journal, there was no consultation whatsoever with the handling editors regarding this new initiative. This is unacceptable behavior on the part of the publisher. For all the above reasons, we are resigning from the Editorial Board of Scientific Reports. Our resignation is effective immediately, but we will work with your office to finish all current editorial assignments. 

Best regards
Editorial board members signing the letter *
Duur Aanen
Derek  Abbott
Hans-Olov Adami
Boris Adryan
Shahzada Ahmad
Tahsin Akalin
Andrey Akimov
Khuloud Al-Jamal
Andrea Alu
David Armstrong
Sassan Asgari
Hellmut Augustin
Jose Luis Balcazar
Amitava Banerjee
Frederic Bard
Renata Basto
Marian Bogunya
Dirk Brockmann
Sue Broughton
Glenn Burley
Guido Caldarelli
Francisco  Campos
Santiago Canals
Federico Canzian
Steve Caplan
Massimo  Cencini
Aravinda  Chakravarti
Nitesh Chawla
Haitao Chu
Ben Collen
Antonio Costa
Marcello D'amelio
Raissa D'souza
Sonia Davila
Robertus De Bruin
Marcella Diemoz
Michael Doebeli
Karen Downs
Esther Dupont-Versteegden
Carmella Evans-Molina
Amani Fawzi
David  Fisman
Rita Fuchs Lokensgard
Andrea  Gabrielli
Raul Gainetdinov
Lazaros Gallos
Alison Galvani
Mariano Garcia-Blanco
Juan Garrahan

Sunita Ghosh
Michelle Girvan
Gabriela Gomes
Stanislav  Gorb
Stephan Grill
Daniel Grimanelli
Thilo Gross
Zhaoli Guo
Maria Hatziapostolou
Brian Hendrich
Ingunn Holen
Richard Houlston
Li Yang Hsu
Jinsong Huang
Mehboob Hussain
Seung-Sik Hwang
Hanjoong Jo
Shahrokh Khanizadeh
Ian Kill
Gyorgy Korniss
Susanne Kramer
Boris Kuhlmey
Pradeep  Kumar
Ori Lahav
Jon Lane
Mikhail Lapine
Beth Lazazzera
Fumin Lei
Dennis Levi
Binhua Lin
Kui Liu
Ke Liu
Xiaogang Liu
Wenshe Liu
Taina Lundell
Bixian Mai
Supriya Mehta
José Fernando  Mendes
Betty Mohler
Elisa Molinari
Victor Moreno
Yamir Moreno
Sarah Murray
Maxence Nachury
Phillip Newmark
Jodi Nunnari
Alex O'neill
Jorge M. Pacheco
Maurizia Palummo
Andrew Pelling
Veronique Pepin
Enrico Petretto
Jose J. Ramasco
Udaykumar Ranga
Cynthia Reichhardt
Isidore Rigoutsos
Adam Roberts
Liane Rossi
Chetana Sachidanandan
Anxo Sánchez
Francisco Santos
Stefano Sanvito
Gopal Sapkota
Antje Schwalb
Rakefet Schwarz
Davis Seelig
Sverre Selbach
Ester Serrao
Kaylene  Simpson
Susan Slaugenhaupt
Peter Sollich
Aaron Straight
Sauro Succi
Elizabeth Sztul
Tian Tang
Peter Tino
Reuben Tooze
Zoltan Toroczkai
Arne Traulsen
Catrin Tudur Smith
Daniel Ungar
Martijn  Van Zanten
Andres Vazquez-Torres
Alessandro Vespignani
Andreas Villunger
Ranjani Viswanatha
Angela Wandinger-Ness
Lin Wang
Fengping Wang
Jorn Werner
Alex Whitworth
Alison Woollard
Chengbin Xiang
Yihong Ye
Yoshikazu Yonemitsu
Zhongming Zhao

Click here to see the scientists supporting this initiative *
* Lists of signatures and supporters are updated automatically several times a day

    Add Your name to the letter 

Submit

    Support this initiative

Submit