N

E W S

O F

T H E

W

E E K

PEER REVIEW

Opting to exclude reviewers may have an even more dramatic effect on a manuscript’s success. Lowell Goldsmith, a dermatological geneticist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the editor of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, and CHICAGO, ILLINOIS—It’s the closest most sci- f ind that, compared to editor-suggested colleagues looked at 228 consecutive manuentists will come to picking their own jurors. reviewers, author-suggested reviewers script submissions to the journal in 2003. Amid all the checklists, bibliographic infor- were more likely to recommend manu- The team found that the odds of acceptance mation, and file-attachment instructions, the script publication (55.7% versus 49.5%) were twice as high for manuscripts for which manuscript submission forms of many jour- and less likely to recommend rejection authors had excluded reviewers compared to nals ask authors a simple question: Are there (14.4% versus 24.1%). those whose authors had not done so. any individuals you would like to suggest or “Editors and authors can be confident “Excluding reviewers ends up being very, exclude as potential reviewers? that either group will do an adequate job at very important,” says Goldsmith. “People Having a say over who will review one’s reviewing the manuscript,” says Schroter. know their assassins.” work should be a good thing. Authors may “But editors should be a bit more cautious What’s driving these numbers is not clear. be better placed than editors to know who is about relying on the recommendations of If authors tend to suggest sympathetic best qualified to evaluate their findings, and author-suggested reviewers.” reviewers and exclude nitpicky ones, for they may have valid reasons for keeping Schroter’s findings are reinforced by a example, the findings could spotlight biases sensitive results out of the hands of a close study conducted by journal consultant Eliza- in the peer-review process. Similarly, bias competitor. Yet many decline to suggest beth Wager and colleagues at BioMed Cen- may be introduced by reviewers in journals reviewers, and only a small percentage opt tral, an open-access publisher of online jour- at which reviews are not anonymous. Says to exclude them. nals. Wager’s team compared editor-chosen Wager: “Author-suggested reviewers don’t That may change, thanks to the results of and author-suggested reviews submitted to want to be the person that killed their recomthree studies presented here last week at the 40 of BioMed Central’s journals. Using crite- mender’s last study.” Fifth International Congress on Peer Review ria similar to Schroter’s, the researchers found But David Nordstrom, an epidemiologist and Biomedical Publication, organized by little difference in quality between the two at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, the Journal of the American Medical Asso- groups of reviews. And, like Schroter, they and an adviser on grant applications and peer ciation and the British Medical Journal found that author-suggested reviewers were review, isn’t as cynical. “I take a fairly benign (BMJ) Publishing Group. Either suggesting more likely to advocate manuscript accept- view,” he says: Author-suggested reviewers or excluding reviewers, the studies show, ance (47% versus 35%) and less likely to rec- tend to be familiar with the author’s field and can significantly increase a manuscript’s ommend rejection (10% versus 23%). may be in a better position to recognize the chances of being accepted. potential impact of a paper. And “The studies point out a Haynes says that more-established Peer-Review Bias? potential for bias in the peerresearchers, who may have the review system,” says R. Brian hubris to exclude reviewers, may Editor-suggested reviewers Author-suggested reviewers Haynes, a clinical epidemiolalso have a better chance of getogist at McMaster University ting manuscripts accepted. in Ontario, Canada, and the Are such author-tailored Reject editor of two clinical jourreviews likely to increase? 14.4% Reject nals. “If that’s the case, this is Matthias Egger, an epidemiolo24.1% something we should be takgist at the University of Bern in Accept Accept ing a closer look at.” Switzerland and an associate ediResubmit 49.5% 55.7% Journal editors who use tor of the International Journal 29.9% Resubmit author-suggested reviewers of Epidemiology, says it’s hard to 26.4% tend to disagree about their predict. Many authors are loath value, says Sara Schroter, a to exclude reviewers because it senior researcher at the BMJ goes against their ideal vision of Publishing Group. So she what science should be about, he and colleagues compared says: “Scientists like to believe author-suggested reviews to that personal factors shouldn’t Reject those solicited by editors at play a role in science.” 10% Reject 10 journals owned by the At the same time, he says, 23% Accept company, including Heart, there are valid reasons to single 35% Accept Tobacco Control, and BMJ out reviewers. Some scientists 47% itself. In a 9-month survey hold grudges, Egger says. Others Undecided 43% of 788 reviews for 329 manmay have conflicts of interest or Undecided uscripts, the team found no are just not qualified to evaluate 42% significant difference in the certain topics. So suggesting or quality (as measured by excluding reviewers may help widely agreed upon criteria limit bias rather than introduce it. judged to be essential for a Choose wisely. Author-suggested reviewers are more likely to recommend “I’ve never excluded a reviewer,” good review) or timeliness manuscript acceptance and less likely to advocate rejection than editor- he says, “but perhaps it isn’t such of reviews between the two suggested reviewers, according to studies led by Sara Schroter (above) and a bad thing to do.” groups. However, they did Elizabeth Wager (below). –DAVID GRIMM

1974

23 SEPTEMBER 2005

VOL 309

SCIENCE

Published by AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

CREDITS (TOP ROW) S. SCHROTER ET AL.; (BOTTOM ROW) E. WAGER ET AL.

STUDY 2

STUDY 1

Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on December 1, 2008

Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published