Skip to main content
Premium Trial:

Request an Annual Quote

Under Review

Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals is a bit like being a sperm donor, writes David Cameron Duffy at The Scientist, offering up one of the more pungent similes in recent memory.

"They are anonymous and their pleasure, if any, is in the process, not the result," he notes, going on to ask, given this state of affairs, "Who in their right mind would want" such a job?

The answer, it would appear, is basically no one. Scientific publishing is in the midst of a "refereeing crisis," Duffy says, and while a number of ways of remedying the situation have been suggested — from punishing reviewers for poor work to byzantine rewards systems — the best way to encourage scientists to serve as reviewers might be to ensure they receive proper credit in the field by producing metrics demonstrating their contributions.

For instance, Duffy writes, "journals could produce an annual list of reviewers and the number of times each reviewed. The sum of the number of reviews by individual referees, multiplied by the impact factor of the journals for which they reviewed, should reflect their standing in the field."

If nothing else, it could make for some entertaining peacocking around the faculty lounge.

The Scan

Genetic Ancestry of South America's Indigenous Mapuche Traced

Researchers in Current Biology analyzed genome-wide data from more than five dozen Mapuche individuals to better understand their genetic history.

Study Finds Variants Linked to Diverticular Disease, Presents Polygenic Score

A new study in Cell Genomics reports on more than 150 genetic variants associated with risk of diverticular disease.

Mild, Severe Psoriasis Marked by Different Molecular Features, Spatial Transcriptomic Analysis Finds

A spatial transcriptomics paper in Science Immunology finds differences in cell and signaling pathway activity between mild and severe psoriasis.

ChatGPT Does As Well As Humans Answering Genetics Questions, Study Finds

Researchers in the European Journal of Human Genetics had ChatGPT answer genetics-related questions, finding it was about 68 percent accurate, but sometimes gave different answers to the same question.