Scientific knowledge is a moving target growing in complexity at a rapid pace. The publication record of the last 50 years is a testament to this: there has been an impact shift from solo to team-authored papers in science and engineering ( Wuchty, Jones, Uzzi, Science 2007). This inevitably has led to a more nuanced and laborious review process that depends now more than ever on the opinion of experts. The opaque, tedious and lengthy review process at many journals leaves a lot to be desired ( Kravitz and Baker, Front Comp Neurosci. 2011). Some of the new challenges of the review process include the rise of negative reviews due to the brutal competition for grants and jobs. And reviewer fatigue incurred by the high-stakes of glamour pubs (rejected papers win appeals, too many rounds of review, etc). The review process needs to evolve to provide greater transparency and to give the relevant scientific community a greater say...
Read more at http://malypense.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/elife-my-qa-with-editor-in-chief-randy-schekman/
