JERB - Nutcracker or Sledgehammer? - Note to the attention of Mr S. Quest - DG of JRC
Ispra, 29th July 2020
NOTE TO THE ATTENTION OF
MR S. QUEST – DIRECTOR GENERAL OF JRC
Subject: JERB - Nutcracker or Sledgehammer ?
Dear Mr Quest,
We read with some perplexity your recent message launching the Editorial Review Board and the ensuing Call for Reviewers.
While in favour of reasonable measures to ensure the JRC's publications are of the highest quality, we continue to have a number of concerns (c.f. our previous communications (1) ). We also wish to reiterate our professional respect for the Editor-in-Chief and the members of the JERB who are working in good faith to implement a system in accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToR) that they were provided with. You will have found already that the JRC staff that you lead are always enthusiastic and dedicated in the performance of their functions.
First and foremost it has not been demonstrated to the staff that there is a clear issue with quality that required such an overarching board. Relying on hearsay isn’t enough, and the staff would welcome clear evidence of what issues needed to be dealt with, and whether they were confined to particular sources, or involved particular categories of publication.
If your answer to the above is affirmative, then we would also respectfully ask the senior and middle management who have just adopted this new policy (2) what have they been doing approving year-on-year in Pubsy publications of such low quality? The JERB cannot resolve this abrogation of responsibility since the review process is within the Pubsy workflow, and we presume that final decisions regarding publication remain with the HoU and Director responsible. We expect that you will remind these actors that the JERB does not absolve them of the delegated responsibility to oversee the quality of the scientific output as some appear to believe.
Furthermore, any publication, be it a technical report, a science for policy report, or a peer reviewed journal article, is merely the last step of a typically multi-annual process, involving project planning and approval, execution, and final assembly into a coherent document. All these steps must be followed closely to ensure quality output, not just the final step. If we do indeed have a quality issue with our publications, a conversation may be needed regarding the quality control of the entire process, not just at the end when the time and resources have already been spent.
Some specific comments regarding the review process (other suggestions may be found in Connected):
* We welcome the fact that the JERB has decided to implement the new review process within the existing publication structure and not opted for the creation of an ex-novo system as had been an option within the ToR (c.f. ‘The JERB manages the reviewing electronically, for instance in Pubsy’). Possible improvements to Pubsy in the frame of simplification are left to another conversation.
* Has a cost-benefit analysis of the new system been performed? if so, we would appreciate if you would share its conclusions with the staff.
* Why have certain categories, such as peer-reviewed articles, been included from the beginning (c.f. Section 4 of the JERB Rules of Procedure)? There are two reasons why these articles should have been excluded. Firstly, this category already undergoes an external review process, and secondly, rather than start with a sledgehammer, surely it would have been prudent to initiate a new process with a limited number of categories - such as, say, Science for Policy Reports, that are of especially high visibility, and see how the system works in practise.
* We remain concerned that the ToR continues to refer to possible political sensitivity. As mentioned above, the management has the responsibility here, and the JERB should not be used as a means of splitting - and hence removing or diluting - responsibility, or of enforcing censorship on research output (that usually ends badly).
If there are issues to be resolved in some areas of the JRC's output, surely a nutcracker is better than a sledgehammer. The staff would have greatly appreciated a further round of reviews of the proposed implementation before launch - as scientists we like to be convinced with evidence, and such an approach would be more likely to make them willing partners.
Salvatore Tirendi Robert Kenny
Vice-President, R&D Ispra Political Secretary, R&D Ispra
Cc : B. Magenhann, D. Al Khudhairy, M. Landabaso Alvarez, P. Szymanski, G. De Santi, D. Chirondojan, G. Van den Eede, M. Betti, P. Duponteil, K. Maruszewski, X. Troussard.
(1) Note to the attention of Mr Sucha – DG JRC - JERB EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD of 25/10/2019
Reply to the letter of R&D Ispra from Ms Vitcheva - Acting DG JRC of 2/12/2019
(2) Minutes Senior Management Meeting of 20/7/2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
No comments :
Post a Comment