EDITORIAL
The EMBO Journal (2010) 29, 3891 - 3892
doi:10.1038/emboj.2010.307
A transparent black box
Bernd Pulverer1
Introduction
FURTHER ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS AND JOURNAL POLICIES ENSURE A TRANSPARENT, FAST AND FAIR EDITORIAL PROCESS
Vital statistics: high speed and fewer laps to the finish line
A unique feature of The EMBO Journal is that we publish data on the efficiency of the editorial process (find the latest analysis of manuscripts submitted in 2009 at http://www.nature.com/emboj/about/process.html). We accepted 12% of submitted manuscripts, 2% more than in the preceding year, with similar submission volumes. The journal is fast: editorial decisions were made, on average, in 2.3 days and post-review decisions in 29 days1. The majority of manuscripts went through only one major round of revision. Notably, we ensure that no new issues are raised that were not brought forward in the initial review (excluding points on data added in revision, of course). A total of 74% manuscripts were rejected before formal peer review, 21% of these with additional advice from the editorial advisory board. We have a relatively high ‘first cut’, so that only manuscripts that fit within the journal's scope, that present a sufficiently striking advance and that have a real chance of being published with realistic further revision continue to the more time-intensive peer review process. As a result, 46% of the peer reviewed manuscripts end up being published. Remarkably, 97% of cases where a revision is invited are published. Thus, once a revision is invited, the odds for publication without delay are high. Are we selecting the right papers for publication? Our analysis of manuscripts rejected in 2008 shows that until now 1% appeared in journals with an impact factor two or more notches above this journal. 9% of the rejected manuscripts cite higher than the average EMBO Journal paper.
Scooping protection
Molecular cell biology is a rather competitive discipline. The next big open questions rarely occur to only one researcher. Technical and research advances, as well as funding priorities, encourage multiple laboratories to pursue similar directions. In contrast to other disciplines, experiments are quickly executed and often don′t require unique hardware or expertise. Derivative work will not be accepted in a highly selective journal such as this. However, in our view, work that has been scooped is not necessarily derivative. We certainly don′t want to encourage premature publication to claim first discovery and we appreciate that authors who go the extra mile to cross every t and dot every i, who delve further in mechanism or expand the physiological significance of their findings run the risk of being scooped. We want to encourage broad and deep studies over ‘salami slices’. For this reason, it is editorial policy that a study will not be rejected on account of having been scooped while it is under consideration. Where additional experimentation is required, we will specify when to expect a revision (usually around 3 months). In this period, an author is also immune from rejection due to scooping, as long as related publications are immediately discussed with the editor so as to minimize delays. If there is good reason that a revision will take longer than specified and no related literature has appeared, we will usually be able to extend the deadline.
...
