Why and How Publishing Referees' Comments Should Be Included in Academic Papers

The academic publishing process is often shrouded in a veil of mystery, with the opinions and feedback of referees playing a crucial role in shaping scientific papers. Until recently, these valuable insights remained hidden from the public, confined to the internal loop of the peer review process. Today, as we move towards a more transparent academic landscape, the question arises: why are the comments made by referees not included in published scientific papers?

PLOS Journals as a Leading Example

Some journals are already stepping forward by including referee comments in published papers, with PLOS journals being a notable example. For instance, PLOS has adopted the practice of including reviewer comments alongside the final manuscript to enhance the transparency and credibility of the research. This approach not only provides readers with a clearer understanding of the strengths and significance of the study but also gives a deserved shout-out to the anonymous reviewers who contribute their expertise to the scholarly community.

Challenges and Advantages of Including Referee Comments

The shift towards publishing referee comments comes with its own set of challenges and advantages. On one hand, it can discourage publication of reviews, as the process of printing and mailing traditional journals was costly. However, with the advent of online publishing, many barriers have been eliminated, making it more feasible to include these valuable insights.

Advantages:

Increasing Transparency: Readers get a better idea of the study's context and the critical feedback that shaped it.

Enhancing Credibility: Reviewers are acknowledged for their contributions, which can enhance the trust in the scientific process.

Improved Feedback: Authors can see how their work was improved after review, fostering continuous improvement in research.

Challenges:

Reviewer Consent: Reviewers need to give explicit permission for their comments to be published, especially their names. This ensures that the process remains fair and unbiased.

Author Communication: Authors should be given the opportunity to explain how the final published paper incorporated the reviewers' feedback. This helps in aligning the review process with the final product.

Editorial Oversight: Editors must retain the authority to edit down overly long, irrelevant, or pedantic reviews to ensure the final document remains concise and relevant.

Addressing Potential Concerns

While the inclusion of referee comments is beneficial, it is crucial to address potential concerns to ensure a smooth transition. Here are a few cautions to keep in mind:

Reviewer Criticism: Reviewers need to be assured that their comments will not be misused. For instance, some might hesitate to provide candid feedback if they fear retaliation from more senior researchers.

Author Clarification: It is essential for authors to have the opportunity to explain how the final paper incorporated or didn't address the reviewer's comments. This transparency helps readers understand the evolution of the research.

Editorial Editing: Editors must retain the freedom to edit down lengthy and irrelevant comments, ensuring that the final document remains concise and focused. This practice is similar to what happens in academic seminars, where audience members might ramble on about unrelated topics.

Conclusion

The move towards including referee comments in academic publications is a step towards greater transparency in scientific research. By embracing this practice, we can foster a more open and accountable academic environment that benefits researchers, reviewers, and the broader scientific community.