Opening up Peer Review

PEER review can be decidedly challenging—for authors who must absorb and respond to criticism of their work, for reviewers who invest their time uncompensated (and mostly unrecognized), and for editors who must sometimes make hard decisions on their fellow scientists’ work. But peer review can also be rewarding. It is one of the truest examples of how scientists help one another and shape a field. Peer reviews, author responses, and editor guidance give rise to insights of all kinds, and these communications are often inspired and inspiring. The scholarly publishing landscape is changing, driven by a shift toward a more open and transparent practice of science—and GENETICS is changing, too. Beginning in early 2021, GENETICS will publish decisions and reviews for published papers when authors opt-in. Why offer open peer review? Like others moving in this direction, we are motivated to improve the peer review process to best serve authors, reviewers, readers, and funders. Transparency in the peer review process may highlight potential changes to enhance and modernize the process. Publishing reviews means that readers will get to see what we witness each day: thoughtful, thorough reviews written by dedicated scientists who volunteer their time and who genuinely want to help authors communicate their discoveries. Many authors tell us that the level of peer review performed at GENETICS is exemplary, and we are happy to let readers see the good work our reviewers do. Effective reviews can contribute to lasting impact and increased understanding of the science. Then there are editor decision letters. We see the care our editors take in parsing the reviewers’ opinions and coming to fair and thoughtful decisions on their colleagues’ manuscripts. Editors provide authors with guidance and prioritize the reviewers’ requests, and they often add their own suggestions for improving the manuscript. When reviewers disagree—or when they sometimes expect too much of authors—our editors step in to move the process forward. Publishing decision letters means readers will now be able to glimpse that process. Because peer reviews are scholarly products that enrich the scientific literature, the review record provides an informative supplement to the paper that can enhance the story; readers will be able to see how peer review helped shape the article and the work itself, including in some instances, the paths not taken. Open peer review may even encourage reviewers to take more care in forming and explaining their opinions on the manuscript as their reviews could become part of the public record, even if they as reviewers remain anonymous. Publishing review reports may make it easier for reviewers to receive credit for the service they perform and the contributions they make. The ways we train (or sometimes fail to train) early career scientists in the practice can hinder peer review from reaching its full potential, and peer reviewers from reaching theirs. Another important reason to open up peer review is its use as a teaching tool. Historically, the only way to get a look into the peer review process was to actively participate in it; this adds layers of mystery to the process that disadvantage those without extensive experience. A scientist submitting their first manuscript has very little context for what to expect and how to appropriately respond to the reviews. With the publication of reviews, responses to reviewers, and decision letters, early career scientists can begin to understand the process before becoming a part of it themselves. We also encourage early career scientists to consider applying to the GENETICS Peer Review Training Program to get hands-on training in a live journal environment with feedback from editors; this program is another way GENETICS is working to demystify peer review for the next generation of scientists. How will open peer review at GENETICS work in practice? GENETICS will publish the complete review record of articles whose authors opt in at manuscript acceptance. This record will be published alongside the article and will include a timeline, reviewer reports, author responses, and the editors’ decision letters. Reviewers are made aware that their reports could become part of the published record when they are invited to review; their reviews remain anonymous unless they choose otherwise. GENETICS participates in portable peer review, so authors can ask us to use reviews from another journal to make decisions on a manuscript they submit to GENETICS. In those cases, we will not publish reviews transferred to our journals from another journal. While several journals and publishers have adopted open or transparent peer review processes, the data on uptake and usefulness are far from conclusive. So we see this as an experiment. We will survey authors, reviewers, and readers and report back with the results. Meanwhile, we hope you will participate—as an author, reviewer, or reader—and let us know what you think.