improving the review process

[James M. Bower]

I am currently writing a book on the state of modern biological 
research, comparing that state to the development of physics in the 
16th and 17th centuries.  In the book I am using examples from paper 
and grant reviews we have received to support the proposition that 
biology is essentially a folkloric pre-paradigmatic science that 
needs to develop a sold, quantitative foundation to move forward as a 
real science.

For that reason, I have spent quite a bit of time recently looking 
through old reviews of our papers.  The remarkable thing about those 
reviews is that there is typically very little criticism of the 
methods or results sections, but instead the focus is almost always 
on the discussion.  My favorite quote from one of our reviews (and in 
fact, the source for the title of the forthcoming book), is "I have 
no more concerns about the methods or results, but  I am deeply 
concerned about what would happen if a graduate student read the 
discussion".

Accordingly, I think that the quality and usefulness of the review 
process would be greatly improved if the discussion section was 
excluded, and not even sent to reviewers.  In my view, the discussion 
section should provide an author free reign to consider the 
implications of their work in their own words, unfettered by what is 
all to often a kind of thought censorship or, in effect, demand for 
patronage.  Professional expertise is necessary to assure that a 
paper has no methodological flaws, and that the results are not 
overstated or overdrawn.  But the discussion is the reward that an 
author should get for having pulled off the former two.  How much 
more interesting and revealing would the scientific literature be if 
authors felt free to express their real opinions, and heavens forbid, 
even speculate once in a while?

I should mention one other theme in the book that is relevant to much 
of this discussion.  "Modern" scientific journal publishing was 
actually invented in the 17th century as a means of providing general 
communication between a new age of physicists.  (it is also believed 
that Newton was interested in controlling who said what).  The 
important point for this discussion is that a 10 page paper is 
sufficient space to describe a new approach to understanding 
planetary motion, but it is not, in my opinion, even close to 
sufficient to present a theory appropriate for understanding biology. 
Just at the Transactions of the Royal Society promoted the 
development of a common quantitative base for physics, a new form of 
publication is now necessary to establish such a base for biology and 
other complex systems.

On that - stay tuned....


Jim Bower
-- 
            ***************************************
                        James M. Bower Ph.D.

                      Research Imaging Center
       University of Texas Health Science Center - San Antonio

                            and

                Cajal Neuroscience Research Center
                 University of Texas - San Antonio


                       (626) 791-9615
                       (626) 791-9797 FAX
                       (626) 484-3918 (cell worldwide)

   		Temporary address for correspondence:
		      110 Taos Rd.
		      Altadena, CA. 91001


       WWW addresses for:
         laboratory (temp)          http://www.bbb.caltech.edu/bowerlab
         GENESIS (temp)             http://www.bbb.caltech.edu/GENESIS