MS NOT DR

Anna Stone

(Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, London SE 14 6NW)

My contribution is short as I wish to make a simple proposal. I do not denythe shortcomings of the peer-review process described by Della Sala andGrafman, nor will I take issue with their alternative of substituting referees with“sponsors”, since they already point out the potential pitfalls. Instead, I wish topropose a different solution.

Della Sala and Grafman note that the average time spent on reviewing amanuscript is just 1.5 hours, that the result of the reviewing process isunsatisfying, and that younger reviewers produce more thorough reviews. Theobvious solution is then to intentionally employ less experienced reviewers (as amature entrant to the profession of psychology I prefer the term “lessexperienced” to “younger”). Such reviewers could be drawn from the pool ofPhD students and the recently qualified. Della Sala and Grafman ask: “Whyshould reviewers put more effort into a process which carries no fame, nomoney, very little extra knowledge and for which they bear no responsibility?”.In response to this question, less experienced reviewers may gain substantialbenefits: expanding knowledge, further development of critical evaluation skills,and appreciation of another side of the publication process bringing the ability toimprove own authorship. Benefits for editors, authors of papers under review,and journal readers are that less experienced reviewers may avoid some of theproblems of the current peer-review process, described by Della Sala andGrafman as including nepotism, conflict of interest in the form of scientificcompetition, and “knee-jerk” adherence to current theoretical dogma.

There are, of course, drawbacks to using less experienced reviewers, the mostreadily apparent of which is precisely the relative lack of experience. However,I return to the point that the average of 1.5 hours spent reviewing a manuscriptis simply not sufficient for a comprehensive evaluation. It is not enough thatmore experienced reviewers have the capability to perform an excellent reviewif the will is not there to carry it out. In defence of the less experienced reviewerit should be noted that PhD students do review an awful lot of papers anddevelop a keen appreciation for a methodologically sound study and an originalcontribution to the literature.

In conclusion, I propose that manuscripts be intentionally offered for reviewto less experienced reviewers. This approach offers important benefits andmaintains the key strengths of the peer-review process.

Dr Anna Stone, Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, London. SE14 6NW. E-mail: psp01ams@gold.ac.uk

Cortex, (2002) 38, 413