JRC Editorial Review Board
Ispra, 25th
October 2019
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF
MR V. ŠUCHA - DIRECTOR GENERAL of the JRC
Subject: JRC Editorial
Review Board
Dear Mr Šucha,
R&D Ispra has read with attention
the "Proposal on Terms of Reference for JRC Editorial Review Board".
The stated aim of this board is the review of c. 3,000 manuscripts every year
to ensure quality and integrity of deliverables in a competent, reliable and
harmonised way for the entire JRC.
R&D Ispra, since ever, is focused
on ensuring that newly implemented practices guarantee the most efficient
allocation of resources to the benefit of the JRC's mission to perform high
quality scientific work in support of EU policy.
Following an internal review of the
proposal R&D Ispra feels therefore obliged to transmit its very serious
concerns regarding both the conception of the JERB and its currently outlined
ToR.
Firstly, whilst agreeing that the JRC must
ensure the highest quality for its publications, we are not convinced that the need
for such an Editorial board has been demonstrated. The ‘scientific excellence’
of the JRC has been documented and validated in the bibliometric analysis of
the world’s leading science institutions. Is there any evidence to the
contrary, justifying such an additional reviewing procedure?
We are also concerned that the foreseen
structure (a full-time Editor-in-chief, 9
members representing each directorate, as well
as 100 reviewers) is overwhelming, and incompatible with resource restrictions
throughout the JRC. It is also very unwise to introduce such a huge endeavour before
knowing the precise impact of Brexit on future allocation of resources. Additionally,
this new structure would lead to significant delays in the publication of JRC's
scientific and policy related output.
While some aspects of the
ToR aim to help ensuring quality of manuscript, Pubsy already contains a process
for review that may be improved - if truly needed - without creating a parallel
redundant system.
Finally, included in the ToR it is stated that the JERB is to
judge whether the manuscript addresses a topical policy issue and/or contains a
possible political sensitivity. These are surely questions for the
management to consider during the work programme planning and execution, not at
the end of the process when the work is done and a manuscript already prepared,
possibly with the input of other stakeholders and DGs. The middle and senior
management already approve manuscripts for publication in Pubsy and this
responsibility must remain with them.
We therefore request that the implementation of the JERB be suspended until the concerns above
have been fully addressed and an in-depth cost/benefit analysis has been
carried out.
Yours
faithfully,
Gianfranco
Selvagio
President,
R&D Ispra
|
Robert
Kenny
Political
Secretary, R&D Ispra
|
Cc: C.
Vitcheva, D. Al Khudhairy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment