De:
F. Pacheco Torgal [mailto:torgal@civil.uminho.pt]
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 14 de
Julho de 2016 11:17
Assunto: Peer Review—Shame on Us
A Thomson Reuters (ISI web of science) acaba de
ser vendida por mais de 3.500 milhões de euros. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/thomson-reuters-announces-definitive-agreement-to-sell-its-intellectual-property-science-business-to-onex-and-baring-asia-for-355-billion-2016-07-11 trata-de uma “empresa” cujo modelo
de negócio assenta em milhões de horas de trabalho não
remunerado feito por académicos. Também a Elsevier ou a Springer tem um
volume de negócios anual de vários milhares de milhões de euros resultantes de
trabalho não remunerado da mesma natureza. Ainda propósito de trabalho não
remunerado, merece destaque o valor de mais de 22 milhões de horas, que foram "gastas" unicamente no ano de 2013
na revisão de artigos para as 12 maiores editoras como se pode ler no editorial abaixo, o qual foi
recentemente publicado numa revista de medicina http://cms.sagepub.com/content/20/3/194.short o que para um valor hora de 40 euros (o custo de
uma consulta de medicina geral em Portugal ou do serviço de uma empregada
doméstica nalguns países) dá 880 milhões de euros valor que permite perceber
que se todo o trabalho intelectual de produção
científica e de revisão fosse pago o
modelo de negócio atrás referido seria manifestamente inviável. Permanece
por isso um mistério porque motivo as universidades, muitas delas com graves
problemas financeiros, continuam a contribuir com trabalho não remunerado para a boa saúde financeira das referidas
"empresas" e bem assim para a remuneração
dos acionistas das mesmas. O que seria expectável num mundo onde as coisas
funcionassem racionalmente era que as universidades fossem remuneradas em
espécie, em acções ou de qualquer outra forma pelo trabalho intelectual dos
seus investigadores. É no entanto evidente que nenhuma universidade ou país conseguirá
forçar uma tal mudança atendendo ao actual contexto de impunidade e hipocrisia
do corporativismo transnacional "big business" que ao mesmo tempo que
evita pagar impostos por menores que eles sejam ainda se atrevem a exigir
cortes na segurança social e no acesso á saúde daqueles que menos têm http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/102512%20-%20JobDestroyers3.pdf (Convém
lembrar que a rainha Maria Antonieta foi guilhotinada por menos). Talvez um grupo de países, como a UE, pudesse
consegui-lo não fosse dar-se o caso de também neste espaço geográfico e
político o "big business" ter um tratamento preferencial a vários
níveis seja na evasão fiscal ou mesmo na desregulação
"à la carte" em curso por via do TTIP o qual como defendem vários
prémios Nobel da economia irá servir para beneficiar os mesmos de sempre (o
grupo de 1% com mais rendimentos) ao mesmo tempo que agravará ainda mais as
desigualdades de rendimentos actualmente existentes.
Saudações académicas
F.Pacheco Torgal
Peer Review—Shame on Us
"Peer review is a process, albeit flawed, which
is critically important to the publication of new scientific knowledge. There is
no greater praise for one’s work than the accolades and validation of respected
colleagues and no greater reward than to have those same colleagues critique
and improve your work. The process of peer review was first applied to academic
journalism in 1752 (Kronick DA, Peer review in 18th-century scientific
journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321-1322) with the establishment of
the Committee on Papers by the Royal Society of London to review the first scientific journal Philosophical
Transactions. In 2016, the peer review process may be
single-blinded, double-blinded, or open where authors and reviewers are known
to one another and the reviewers may or may not be identified publicly.
Virtually all of the most highly cited medical journals use the single-blinded
process. The journal Nature is expanding on the traditional
process, allowing authors to choose either single- or double-blinded review. JCMS uses
the single-blinded process. I contemplated a change to a double-blinded review,
as this is intuitively more rigorous, but anonymity is almost impossible to
achieve and it requires a significant increase in workload for the
administrative managing editor. In addition, the published literature on the
subject suggests that the type of blinding does not affect the quality of
reviews; therefore, we will continue to utilize the single-blinded
process. I recently attended a meeting of the Council of Dermatology
Editors, where Ms. Kate Perry, an editor with the publisher Wiley, presented
the results of a survey that Wiley undertook in 2015 to better understand the
peer review experience. The survey received 2982 responses
(1.7% response rate) from reviewers
across the geographic and subject areas serviced by Wiley journals. It has
been estimated that more than 22 million hours were spent reviewing manuscripts for the top
12 publishers in 2013. The Wiley survey confirmed that the primary reason that reviewers
freely give of their time and expertise is to support their research community
and “pay forward” the good will of others who have reviewed their work. It was
also interesting to note that reviewers are more likely to accept the
invitation from prestigious journals, to spend more time reviewing these
manuscripts, and to adhere to the journal’s deadlines. Forty-nine percent of
reviewers review for more than 5 journals. The survey also noted that
recognition and feedback were more important than more tangible rewards. The
Wiley survey also revealed that three-quarters of all reviewers stated that
they would like more training, with 89% of early career researchers requesting
additional training. Peer review is the cornerstone of academic learning
and it is taken for granted. There needs to be change, and nothing short of
public shaming is likely to accomplish this. Academic institutions need to
recognize peer review as an integral component of scientific research and
provide it equal merit to other research activities. Societies and institutions that survive and flourish as a result of the
unpaid work of reviewers need
to recognize reviewer work, provide reviewer training, and lobby academic
institutions and granting agencies to formally record and specifically
acknowledge our colleagues engaged in the peer review process. JCMS can, I believe, make a
difference. I intend to lead by example and address the most significant issues
that were elucidated in the Wiley survey. I will seek out an educator to meet
the reviewer request for more training. I have initiated a Wall of Honor on the
masthead where the names of reviewers will be published in a timely and dynamic
manner. SAGE Publications, our publisher, is now integrated with Publons, which
is an online service that will record and verify the work of reviewers so that
this work may be highlighted for career advancement purposes. I will review the
CV formats of our academic institutions and request that a section be allocated
for the purpose of listing reviewer work now that Publons is integrated with
our publisher. I also hope that each of you—our authors, reviewers, and
readers—will take this message to your institutions and speak out for the
recognition that our colleagues who undertake peer review deserve.
Kirk
Barber, MD, FRCPC
Editor-in-Chief,
JCMS
|
