As we wrote last week we are celebrating Peer Review Week 2015 by a focus on the theme “dreams and visions” about peer review. Our aim this Peer Review Week will be to publish interviews with scholars from different disciplines based at Stockholm University, who will share their dreams and visions about the peer review process.
Today we publish a short interview with Per Carlbring, professor in psychology and editor in chief for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.
Photo: David Brohede
Imagine the ideal peer review context/situation, what does it look like according to you?
– Perhaps it should be a more gamified peer-review and publishing process. The journal that has come the furthest at the moment is PeerJ. They give reviewers points and display that on a public score board.
I know other publishers are working on badges that you can earn and put on your website. I also think that having the editor and submitting author rate the reviewers is a way of ensuring that the standards are high.
Perhaps the pre-publication history that BMC publishes should also be incorporated into the ideal peer review process. I have mixed feelings about the blinding. I would like to see gamified publishing come full circle and incorporate this with waiving of article publishing fees for gold open access after a few – at least moderately rated – reviews.
I think the present day peer review system is coming apart. It has become harder to get peer reviewers in the last 5 years. It probably would help if reviewers were recognized as such by their institutions and funding bodies. Still, maybe The Lancet is right when they say we are publishing too much?
What is the best thing about peer review in your field today?
– There are of course a number of potential problems with the system, many of which I have encountered, but I often find the peer review process valuable and in the best instances making the paper considerably better.
What makes you want to participate in peer review?
– Usually because I find the topic of the manuscript interesting and want to read the study. However, sometimes I agree to review, especially when a high ranking journal asks me to, if I suspect there might be a number of errors or unjustified claims.
Do you have any thoughts or want to contribute with your dreams and visions? Please leave a comment.