Valuing peer review at Disease Models & Mechanisms

To what extent should peer review be a requirement for publication in Disease Models & Mechanisms (DMM)? Last year, at a meeting of the Board of Directors of The Company of Biologists, this provocative question was raised in the context of an informal discussion about preprint servers, which enable authors to distribute their work prior to peer review. My immediate reaction was that of course we need peer review! But the question has stayed with me and challenged me to understand and articulate exactly how peer review serves authors and readers at DMM, and how we can improve this process.In recent years, preprint servers have emerged as a mechanism for authors to disseminate their own work directly, without a journal publisher. This can be especially beneficial for work funded by charities and the taxpayer, and for early-career researchers and researchers in low- and middle-income countries, because distribution is immediate, free and not defined by the scope of specific journals or publishers (Sarabipour et al., 2019; as described in an article for University World News by Maina Waruru). Rather than formal peer review, readers can directly comment on the interpretation of the data or analysis, and the authors can choose whether or how to respond. In a recent study, it was reported that 7.3% of preprints in bioRxiv and medRxiv from 2020 had some form of comments and that these were similar to the quality of comments in peer review (Carneiro et al., 2023). Preprint servers, including region-specific servers such as AfricArXiv, can help provide visibility for research from low- and middle-income countries, which might struggle with discoverability and the costs of research publishing (article for University World News by Maina Waruru). However, the sharing of data prior to peer review is not without risk, and there can be a direct harm to the field and to the public when low-quality, flawed or even fraudulent studies are posted on preprint servers, as, for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gopalakrishna, 2021). One solution to this is Review Commons, which provides authors with a refereed preprint that can be posted to bioRxiv, as well as the facilitated transfer of the manuscript and reviews to affiliated journals, including DMM and some of its sister journals.So, as an independent not-for-profit publisher within a highly competitive landscape, what service do we provide authors when they choose to publish their papers with us? Does peer review provide a necessary part of the scientific process or an unnecessary speedbump to dissemination? Might the new eLife model, which enables authors to choose which, if any revisions they perform, be preferred for our editors and authors? I took these questions to the annual DMM Editor meeting in London this past October.First, we discussed our experience with peer review. As academic editors at DMM and practicing scientists whose own work undergoes scrutiny, our discussion was shaped by our dual perspective. We have found that, since the pandemic, academics are finding an increase in their workload, and it can take longer to secure appropriate reviewers. At DMM, we aim for three reviewers for each article, but if we have two reviewers who can sufficiently cover the experimental range of the work, we can move forward. We are also noticing that, again since the pandemic, reviewers need more time to complete reviews, and we are generally happy to accommodate this and try to keep the authors informed. This stage is the longest in the process, and we are mindful that although authors are anxious to receive the reviews as soon as possible, the reviewers are good-will volunteers (Aczel et al., 2021). To address concerns about publishing times, The Company of Biologists is discussing innovative publishing models that include rapid review and compensating reviewers. Some of the ways we support and incentivise reviewers at The Company of Biologists' journals are outlined in Box 1. From our surveys and feedback, we know that reviewers are motivated by reviewing for a journal published by a not-for-profit company that invests in science and the scientific community (through our funding of, for example, Travelling Fellowships, the Fund for Innovation in Sustainable Conferencing, Meeting Grants and Workshops). Box 1. Supporting our reviewersCross-referee commentingDMM operates cross-referee commenting, wherein we invite referees to comment on the other referee reports prior to editorial decision. The aim of this cross-referee commenting step is to help resolve differences between referees, identify unnecessary or unreasonable requests, or, conversely, highlight valid concerns raised by one referee but overlooked by others.Acknowledging our reviewersA small gesture perhaps, but each year DMM publishes a list of its peer reviewers (and co-reviewers) from the past year.Partnership with Web of Science Reviewer Recognition ServiceDMM's partnership with Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service (formerly known as Publons) allows reviewers to easily track and verify every review by choosing to add the review to their Publons profile when completing the review submission form.The Forest of BiologistsTo acknowledge our reviewers, who help preserve the integrity of the scientific record, we fund the restoration and preservation of ancient woodland within Great Knott Wood in the Lake District National Park, UK. Each time a peer reviewer completes the review process for one of our articles, we dedicate a tree in the ancient woodland to them. Representations of these trees are added to our virtual forest periodically. There will be no association with specific articles to ensure that peer reviewers retain their anonymity. Hear from publisher Claire Moulton and read the Editorial to find out more about The Forest of Biologists.Generally, we agreed that reviewers submitted thoughtful, thorough and considerate critiques of the paper and that, overall, we felt that the revision process improved the scientific rigour and clarity of DMM papers. There is no doubt that it can be an imperfect process, and sometimes the reviewer doesn't get it right, or takes an unnecessarily negative or superficial view. In these cases, it is the role of the editor to communicate to the authors which aspects of the reviews to address and focus their efforts on for revision. At DMM, the Editors and in-house editorial team regularly discuss issues relating to peer review of individual manuscripts to assist in our decision making. And, of course, the authors themselves can respond to the reviewer and explain why some revisions may be helpful, whereas others do not advance the conclusions of the research.We understand that the peer review process can be subject to bias, including gender, ethnicity, career stage and geography (Caplar et al., 2017; Harris et al., 2017a,b; Helmer et al., 2017; Holst et al., 2022; Smith, 2006; Squazzoni et al., 2021). DMM aims to engage a broad and diverse group of authors, reviewers, Editors, editorial staff, Editorial Board members and readers. The Company of Biologists was a founding signatory of a cross-publisher joint commitment for action on inclusion and diversity in publishing, which is working towards ensuring that we reflect the diversity of the community in our publishing activities, for example, by enabling diversity data to be self-reported by our reviewers and authors. In addition, DMM follows Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for ethical peer review and strives to be aware of and open to new developments and experiments. For example, DMM has recently outlined new policies regarding the use of artificial intelligence in peer review. See Box 2 for some of the new initiatives we are taking at The Company of Biologists regarding peer review. Box 2. The future of peer review at The Company of Biologists and DMMTransparent peer reviewAuthors who submit to DMM's sister journals Development and Journal of Cell Science can opt to publish ‘peer review history’ files alongside published manuscripts. These include decision letters, referee reports and author point-by-point responses, along with a timeline of the submission and revision process, and the name of the Handling Editor. At this time, these do not include the reviewer names. Confidential comments to the Editor will remain confidential (although we encourage referees to use these only under exceptional circumstances and would prefer all information to be included in the report to the authors), as will comments made through the cross-referee commenting process.Peer review badgeNew badges will indicate that papers have undergone rigorous peer review at DMM. We hope that these will be a marker of esteem for authors, and of assurance for readers. This marker is encouraged as good publishing practice to distinguish papers from non-peer-reviewed preprints and is particularly important when communicating science to the public.ORCIDIntegration with ORCID will allow reviewers to automatically record their reviewer record with their ORCID account, giving credit where it is due. The profile can then be used in job, visa and grant applications, complete with journal-verified review activities.One aspect of peer review at DMM that we found very helpful is the cross-referee commenting system that provides a 48-h window for reviewers to comment on each other's reports before an editorial decision is made. Often, having read the other reports, the reviewers will refine their reviews, or even comment where they think other reviewers have misunderstood an experiment or have asked for work beyond the scope of the submission. These comments are incredibly helpful to us editors, as they enable us to distinguish between revisions that truly advance the discoveries in the paper and those that are ‘nice to have’. We can then direct the authors' efforts towards the important revisions.A flavour of some thoughts about peer review among DMM Editors is given in Box 3. Two topics that are part of ongoing discussion centre around the balance of how much of the review process is accessible to the reader. Two of DMM's sister journals, Development and Journal of Cell Science, operate transparent peer review, which provides the reader with access to the decision letters, referee reports and author point-by-point responses, along with a timeline of the submission and revision process, and the name of the Handling Editor (but not reviewer names) (Holst et al., 2022). Adopting the same approach, to which authors opt in, is still being discussed among the DMM Editor team, with some Editors concerned about exactly how much of the otherwise confidential discussions between authors, reviewers and editors is revealed upon publication. Another area concerns revealing reviewer identity. Although reviewers can sign their names to their review, generally, DMM reviewers are anonymous to the authors and to each other. Some Editors feel that revealing reviewer identity can hold back reviewers from expressing their true opinion about the manuscript to avoid conflict between reviewers, and that it may set up obligations (perceived or otherwise) between authors and reviewers, or even among the reviewers themselves. Others feel that revealing reviewer identity is an important aspect of transparency and allows the authors (and possibly readers, in the case of transparent peer review) to understand the level and area of expertise of the reviewer. Box 3. View from the front line – comments from our EditorsAs an editor, I always learn something new from peer review. I really enjoy seeing people engage with new scientific results, evaluate the science critically, in the best sense of that word, and help improve the manuscript.I intentionally include a mixture of scientific perspectives, geography and gender balance when inviting reviewers.For me, I see the most important task of the editor as striking the right balance of neutral arbiter, versus ‘managing’ the peer review process. Meaning that I am cautious about intervening between reviewer and author, or overruling a reviewer's requests. At the same time, this is absolutely necessary and appropriate in some cases, especially when it comes to deciding what is ‘reasonable’ to request for author revisions.If the importance of anonymous, high-quality peer review is not recognised as requisite for high-quality publications, then trust in the dissemination of scientific findings will be eroded. Already we see the development of a fractured system where it is not clear to all which journals adhere to strong peer review principles and which do not.Securing reviewers can be difficult as PIs [principal investigators] have many competing demands. A PI working with an ECR [early-career researcher] to review a manuscript should enable PIs to accept invitations more readily, as the effort in reviewing is reduced and the ECR gains essential experience. [Note: DMM encourages this, as long as there is a genuine mentoring experience, and provides a box to record the co-reviewer name.]Quality in peer review requires anonymity, fairness and communication.To contribute to diversity in peer review, editorial boards need to be replenished with individuals from diverse backgrounds and geographical locations.Peer review can be better rewarded by providing a system wherein reviewers are charged less to publish their manuscript in the journal.The review content should be balanced with plusses and negatives, with the negatives couched in an instructional way for how to change the content for the better.Peer review is an opportunity to demonstrate what good quality peer review is, and also to educate your mentees and to invite them to be part of the process. This is, after all, really the only way we can perpetuate good peer review into the future.There is a perceived lack of diversity or ‘gatekeeping’ inherent in a seemingly elite publishing model. There are a number of things we should work on to encourage diversity in peer review: improving analysis of demographic data and having a clear diversity statement are a start.We are observing with concern the for-profit Open Access mega journals, which charge a set fee, earn large profits and offer rapid publication, some with a median submission-to-acceptance time within 37 days (Brainard, 2023). Although we firmly believe that diversity in publishing models is best for the scientific community, we are sceptical that many of these journals can provide meaningful peer review at scale. Rigorous peer review is also a critical weapon in the fight against the rise of fraudulent papers generated by ‘paper mills’ (Hackett and Kelly, 2020). Even more concerning, a recent investigation reported in Science shows that paper mills have gone beyond churning out fake papers, and have even infiltrated the publishing process though bribing editors and becoming publishers themselves (Joelving and Retraction, 2024). These practices are eroding trust in specific journals and publishers, with clear impact: over 10,000 papers were retracted in 2023, largely due to concerns about the integrity of the peer review process at Hindawi, a subsidiary of Wiley (Van Noorden, 2023), and 19 Hindawi journals and two MDPI titles were delisted from Web of Science (and ‘lost’ their impact factor) last year (Brainard, 2023). The recently established international group United2Act Against Paper Mills is working with publishers, funders, research bodies and other stakeholders (including Clarivate, the analytics company that runs the Web of Science Master Journal List and calculates the impact factor) and has developed a consensus statement with working groups to address five specific actions to address this problem (https://united2act.org/) that only DMM Editors is the importance of peer review as a marker of quality In addition, as of we all papers in the that they will through peer review, we and and in this peer review has studies when they as This peer for critical prior to submission to a journal or preprint scientific and has also reported to help scientific (Gopalakrishna, at DMM and The Company of Biologists as a and record for the scientific community and the which is upon for future We are of our peer review at DMM and readers to know that DMM articles are peer To demonstrate this, we are a new to have a ‘peer as well as giving the as of quality beyond the of impact and As publishing and peer review to we from authors and reviewers at any time, and authors are a to complete at time of or We aim to to be a for and of rigorous is a to papers and engage with reviewers at DMM. As DMM Editors, we know how much time peer review and revisions take for the reviewers and the authors (Aczel et al., 2021). At the of every year, we the reviewers who dedicate their time to that truly the science and how it is The names of our reviewers, including their are in Box We also the reviewers of articles to DMM from Review Box for Disease Models & Mechanisms University of University of University of the for University of at University of University of University in University of University of University of University of National of et University of the of The University of University of University of University of University of University of the University of of of University of University of for The for University of University of of for National University of University of University of University of The University of University of of University of for University of for the University of of The University of University and University of of University of National University of at University of of University University of University of University of Great of University of for University of at of University University The of University the University of in for and University University of University the University of University of University University of University of University of University of University of University of National of of of University of University of Great of University of University of for University of University of University of University of University of University National of and and of University University of University of University of University of University of University of and of University of University of at University University of The and University University of The University of University of at The National – University the University of University of of for The University University of Science at University of for for University of Science at University of University of of University at University of University of Science and for University of of of of National of University of University of University of University of University of of University of at National and University of University of University of University in of at The University of University of of University University of National on London of University of University of The and University of at University of for University of of University of University of University University of for University of University of of of University of University University of University of of University of et University of University University of University of University of University of the University of University of University in University of for University of University of University of University of of London of and University of of University of University University of University University of University of University of at for and the University of Science and National for University of at University of University of University of University of National of University of University of University of University University the University of of University of University of University University of University of Science and University of The University of of the University University University University University of University of of the University University University of University of the of and of University of University of at The for University of University of do do of and Cell University of University of at University of of University of of University of University of University of at Smith, University of Smith, of and University of University for University of University of University of University of University of at The for of University of The University of The National of University of University of University of University in University of University of University The for of The University of University of The National of University the University University of University of University of the University of University of University University of at of Science and of National on National of University of University of University of University of University of University of University of University of at University University University of University of University of for University of of and of University of University of University of University of National of for University National all members of the DMM Editor team for ongoing and their and I would to Claire and for comments and to this

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.