Editor's Virtual Forum

We are interested in finding out editors' views on the various issues documented in Editors' Update. We have created the Editors' Virtual Forum to enable you to have your say. In each issue, we'll nominate a topic for discussion and ask you to share your thoughts with other editors. This issues’ topic is Referee Schools, as discussed in this issue of Behind the scenes. Do you agree with answer A, B or C?

Discussion issue: Referee schools

• A.   Referee schools should be mandatory because they ensure that a journal’s pool of referees grows and that the quality of referees improves.
• B.   Referee schools are a waste of time and energy.
• C.   Referee schools are a good idea for journals that are underperforming.

Please email your answer and rationale to editorsupdate@elsevier.com. Both your answer and rationale will be posted. Reactions will be posted below and at the end of the Referee Research results article. Each reply published will display the contributor's name and journal.

Note: Elsevier reserves the right to edit comments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. David Williams, Editor-in-Chief, Biomaterials

Several interesting points arise from the comments of other editors. Most I think arise from a misunderstanding of the process. No-one is coerced and there is no mandatory element to the school. No-one has to 'pass' the school to become a referee. This does not add any burden to referees already in my database and is solely concerned with introducing younger scientists into the process of refereeing. They can apply themselves, or more importantly may be recommended by their senior colleagues. The feedback that I have had is very good since they are provided with exemplars of good reviews and can see how such reviews improve the quality of papers. I believe that the major function of the referees reports is not to help the editor decide whether to accept or reject, but to help improve those we are minded to accept. As I indicated it does require an investment of time and you have to be careful not to get it wrong. With regard to the time investment in the editorial process, I personally agree that editing should not be reserved for retired professors. I have at least three other major functions in life, including that of a professor and director of a large research centre. It is a matter of personal choice how we editors prioritise time to our various commitments.

8. Peter Davis MBE, Editor, Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing

I agree with Peter Shakespeare. I think the questions are wrong. For example, I would not like to think of coercing my referees by making their development mandatory and would not necessarily like to see my pool of referees grow, but would obviously push to improve the quality of my referees. One element of Dr Williams's approach which is crystal clear is his commitment and passion for his journal and that he obviously cares about the people involved from authors to referees and his Journal Board and this must make a tremendous difference. The personal touch is a must and raises some interesting issues in its own right.

7. Peter Shakespeare, Editor, Burns

Referee Schools - An interesting concept but difficult to provide a 'one size fits all' format I suspect. Perhaps the questions are wrong - Mandatory Schools - who would run them - how would experienced researchers view being sent back to school? Waste of time etc - a rather narrow view since attention to the reviewing process is vital. Good idea for underperforming journals - who decides if the Journal is underperforming - what if the Editor doesn't like being labeled as not up to the mark - what does underperforming mean any way?

6. Bernard Clerjaud, Editor, Materials Science and Engineering: B

My answer is C. Comment : the idea is good, but quite hard to apply. Competent colleagues are overburdened with refereeing of papers from all sources (and other tasks as well) and presently lot of them refuses to referee papers. If moreover one ask them to "pass an exam" most of them will simply refuse to "pass the exam". If one could pay the referees for their most important job, the situation would be different!

5. Ashok Pandey, Asia-Pacific Editor, Bioresource Technology

A) Referee schools should be mandatory because they ensure that a journal's pool of referees grows and that the quality of referees improves. My answer is A as above.

4. Emil Frind, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology

This seems to be a good idea in principle, but a little more information is needed. What does it involve? My concern is that with reviewers already heavily loaded, this will just add another burden for them. Therefore, whatever it is, it should be voluntary. Most of our reviewers know what they are doing and they are producing constructive reviews. It is up to the editor to use the reviews intelligently. A ranking system where the editor ranks the quality of each review might help to identify the underperformers.

3. Larry Ricker, Regional Editor (The Americas), Journal of Process Control

I vote for B. A poor review can always be discounted by the editor, so if the goal is to eliminate poor reviews, the "school" is overkill. If the goal is to improve the reviewers' (and authors') perceptions of journal quality, an effective and much less costly approach is to provide each reviewer with feedback on each review: copies of all the reviews, editor's comments (which should also be directed toward improving submission quality), and the authors' responses. Conscientious reviewers will improve. Others can be eliminated from the database after a reasonable trial period.

2. Roel Prins, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Catalysis

The idea of a school for reviewers is not bad, but it will be very time demanding. As editor I would simply have no time to take this on board in addition to my primary job as professor and my second 'job' as editor. I spend between 1 and 2 hours every day on the journal, which I believe is the maximum if you are still full professor and have a wife. I wonder how Dr. Williams is able to spend 4 hours a day on his journal. Is he retired? For our journal, we do not favor retired professors as editor, they may loose the touch with academia and young students.

1. Andy J. Holder, US Editor, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling

My answer is "B", not because I think its a bad idea, but because I just don't think that many people will invest the time in doing this level of work for the "privilege" of refereeing! I have enough trouble as it is getting people to spend time helping out. The trickle of papers has become a flood due (largely, I think) to online submission.