Should authors get a grade for peer reviewing? It's indisputable that, if done well, peer-review activities are a time-consuming contribution to science — and can easily be overlooked by a tenure committee.
A guest post by Willy Aspinall of the University of Bristol, UK, on the Peer-to-Peer blog earlier this month suggested that peer-reviewing activities be scored with a metric that takes into account how many reviews a scientist performs in a year and the impact factors of the journals involved (http://tinyurl.com/d7w4ys).
That post sparked Nature associate editor Noah Gray to respond on his blog, Nothing's Shocking, that such a metric “seems wildly over-simplistic and hardly quantitative” (http://tinyurl.com/cnulcj). Gray takes issue with the idea that peer reviewing is truly a solo undertaking. He goes on to suggest that it would be more appropriate to track authors' contributions through their Web 2.0 interactions and public commenting on science — what he calls “peer review lite”.
He argues that until the review system becomes public and non-anonymous, there is really no way of applying a meaningful metric.
Additional information
Visit Nautilus for regular news relevant to Nature authors → http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus and see Peer-to-Peer for news for peer reviewers and about peer review → http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer .
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
From the Blogosphere. Nature 458, 944 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/7241944c
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/7241944c