[Oradlist] Publish and review or perish
Allan G Farman
agfarm01 at louisville.edu
Wed Jan 16 17:43:13 PST 2008
Alas, many institutions in the USA give little credit to this activity... and further, the very folk who publish the most and expect others to review their papers speedily are also the very persons who are constantly too busy to do reviews for others. Reviewing should be considered a necessary charitable contribution of time to one's profession. It is a final step in the scientific process... but it does not earn the Dean a million dollars in jet fuel. Academic institutions are now run by bean counters who care more about income than scholarly productivity and confuse the two. The scholar would see the review process as a training ground for new scientists and the sharing of advice from senior colleagues. Few scholars run dental schools.
Allan G. Farman
Allan G. Farman, BDS, PhD, MBA, DSc, Diplomate ABOMR
Prof. Radiology & Imaging Science
Univ. Louisville School of Dentistry: SUHD
501 South Preston Street,
Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA
Tel: +1(502) 852.1241
>>> <akiro at hiroshima-u.ac.jp> 01/16/2008 06:59 PM >>>
Dear oradlist members,
I have some concerns about peer review system and the contribution of
"reviewers" and "acknowledgement" for the promotion in academic
Recently, some journals such as the BMJ, Annals Inter Med, and so on
adopt open (non-blind) peer review system because of some merits like
"open peer review should increase both the credit and accountability
for peer reviewing, both of which seem desirable"(BMJ, 1999). The
authors in BioMed Central in London present presents 4 key arguments
in its favor: (1) ethical superiority, (2) lack of important adverse
effects, (3) feasibility in practice, and (4) potential to balance
greater accountability for reviewers with credit for the
work they do (JAMA, 2002). It seems to me that open peer review is
superior to other system (single or double blind system) in the view
point of the development in the biomedical field as well as other
fields, however, some dental journals still keep the latter,
especially anonymous peer review.
Of course, as van Rooyen et al. demonstrate in their randomized trial
(BMJ, 1999), the innovation of open peer review may increase the
likelihood of reviewers declining to review.
Please let me know as to whether open peer review also is useful in
dental journals. The opinions from the editors of the journals are
Also, I would like to ask all members about whether the institutions
or Universities take "the contribution for review of the journals" or
"acknowledgement" into account when considering the promotion in
academic position. Of course, I know that they consider "the
scientific paper" "book" and "presentation" but I have no information
about "the contribution of review" and "acknowledgement".
In January issue of Science, Dr. Perrin, the a past editor of Marine
Mammal Science and a present associate editor of the Journal of
Mammalogy, describes that "Doing a fair share of peer reviews should
be a recognized and expected part of the job for scientific
professionals; it should be written into the job descriptions of
salaried scientists and be considered in evaluating junior faculty
for tenure."(Science, 2008).
Dr. Perrin weeps about the difficulty of finding "appropriate reviewers".
Lack of appropriate reviewers results in poor quality review and low
How about this problem in your institutions or Universities?
Please let me know if you have good system in your institutions or
you have some opinions about this.
Thank you so much in advance.
Hiroshima University Hospital
Akira Taguchi, DDS, PhD
Clinical Associate Professor
Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology
Hiroshima University Hospital
1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima 734-8553
Oradlist mailing list
Oradlist at lists.ucla.edu
More information about the Oradlist