Nature experiments with Open Peer-Review

Though Nature takes pains to distance itself from critics of the current peer review system, this is an interesting experiment from a publisher sometimes chided for aggrandizing scholarly publishing (eg,

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_06_11_fosblogarchive.html#115012224869388294).

Nature's "Web Debate" looks like it has some interesting links, though I haven't followed up on them yet:

http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/

jon

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Nature Publishing Group"<Nature.Publishing.Group@info.nature.com>

Dear Colleague,

There has recently been much discussion in the community about peer-review systems and possible alternative models. As part of our ongoing commitment to readers, authors, reviewers and the scientific community as a whole, Nature is experimenting
with one such alternative model: [ http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/hYZ80BfPkN0DHy03ef0EE ]open peer-review.

The purpose of this trial is to test the quality and quantity of unsolicited comments made during an open peer-review process, as compared to the traditional peer-review process with no unsolicited comments. Nature will offer to upload a manuscript
to a preprint server at the same time it is sent out for normal, confidential peer-review. Scientists can then comment on the posted manuscript. When the editor has received the confidential peer-reviewers’ reports, the open commenting period will
be closed.

This trial will run from June through August. During this time, Nature will offer all authors of manuscripts selected for peer-review the option of simultaneously posting the manuscript on the pre-print server. Participation in this trial is
entirely optional, and will have no effect on a manuscript’s likelihood of being published.

The traditional peer-review process has withstood the test of time, and we here at Nature do not believe there is any fundamental problem with the process. However, as new publishing technologies offer opportunities for change, we are committed to
exploring alternative models to better ascertain their effectiveness and popularity. To this end, we will be hosting a web debate on the subject of peer-review during this three-month trial period.

More information on Nature’s open peer-review trial and the accompanying web debate is available [ http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/hYZ80BfPkN0DHy03ef0EE ]here. You can also sign up for a separate e-alert that will notify you when new
manuscripts are posted to the preprint server and are available for comment. Simply send a [ mailto: Peer.Review.Trial@info.nature.com ]blank email to start receiving these weekly email updates.

I encourage you to take a moment to read more about this trial, and to actively participate in the feedback process, whether by posting comments on individual manuscripts or joining the peer-review debate. We look forward to your input.

Sincerely,

Philip Campbell, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Nature