Misuse of the peer-review system: time for countermeasures?

• Published in: Marine ecology. Progress series (Halstenbek) 2003-08, Vol.258, p.297-309
• Main Authors: Riisgård, Hans Ulrik, Kinne, Otto, Fenchel, Tom, Fee, Everett, Hesslein, Ray, Elser, Jim, Scranton, Mary, Cole, Jon, Hairston, Nelson, Canuel, Elizabeth, Glud, Ronnie, Nielsen, Claus, Beninger, Peter, Waagbø, Rune, Hemre, Gro Ingunn, Hulata, Gideon, Høisæter, Tore, McLusky, Donald, Kneib, Ron, Shumway, Sandra, Warwick, Richard, Hagerman, Lars, Larsen, Poul Scheel, Ott, Jörg, Dworschak, Peter C., Boero, Ferdinando, Gili, Josep-Maria, Philippart, Katja, Seaman, Matthias
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Aquaculture; Authors; Biological and medical sciences; Biological evolution; Djembes; Environmental policy; Exact sciences and technology; Fees; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects. Techniques; Generalities; Genetics of eukaryotes. Biological and molecular evolution; Information and communication sciences; Information science. Documentation; Limnology; Marine; Marine biology; Marine ecology; Other aspects of specialized information. Miscellaneous; Peer review; Research papers; Sciences and techniques of general use; Specialized information sources; Specialized information sources (paper or electronic format); THEME SECTION
• ISSN: 0171-8630; 1616-1599
• DOI: 10.3354/meps258297

The peer-review system is overloaded. This causes problems for reviewers and editors. The focus of this Theme Section (TS) is misuse of the peer-review system by repeated resubmission of unchanged manuscripts (mss). A number of editors and experienced reviewers were invited for comments. Most contributors have seen examples of authors resubmitting mss to new journals after rejection without considering the criticisms of former reviewers. No contributor objects to resubmission of mss to other journals, but all object to authors resubmitting a rejected ms practically unchanged to another journal. For some journals this is not a serious problem, but for others this practice is common and it needs to be stopped. It is fair to give authors a chance for a second opinion on their mss. Most authors take reviewer's reports into consideration before sending the ms to another journal, but many never inform the new journal that the ms had previously been rejected.