- Being time consuming.
- Arbitrary decision sometimes not based on scientific grounds such as "the article is not for the audience of the journal" or "we receive so many articles...".
- Conflicts of interest.
Due to the above reasons, post-publication peer review has been introduced to allow the publication of all scientific articles.
Although the system is new, it does not seems to has broad acceptance by the scientific community. One of the main reason is the growing pressure of institutions and grant agencies on scientist to publish their research in journals with the highest impact factor that are most of them peer-reviewed. The quality of articles published under the post-publication peer review system has been of concern.
The fair publication peer-review process introduced by OncoDrugs is aimed to:
- Allow all manuscripts to have a chance to be published and reduce the revision and publication time after acceptance:
1) All manuscript submitted to OncoDrugs will be reviewed by at least two experts in the field.
2) Depending on the reviewer's comments articles will be:
i) accepted (as it is or with minor changes) or
ii) reconsider for publication with extensive revision.
None of the articles will be rejected after the first round of revision. This will eliminate the time delay, when rejected articles are formatted for resubmision to another journal and will give all authors the opportunity to improve their article to reach the minimum criteria for publication (originality, scientific value and quality)
3) The reviewer comments will be sent to the authors who will decide to address the critics and have the chance to resubmitt their work to OncoDrugs.
4) Each resubmission (with a detailed response to each reviewer) will be evaluated in house a member of the editorial board or external reviewers.
5) A final decision (accepted with minor changes or rejected) will be communicated to the authors within 2-3 weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment