01/02.2020 | THE SCIENTIST 13arena of academic publishing. In this
professional context, journal publica-
tions are major forces in determining
academic career success, supporting the
livelihoods of researchers, influencing
government policy, furthering research
funding, advancing scientific and medi-
cal progress, and supporting the aca-
demic enterprise. Having inexperienced
reviewers usher manuscripts through
the essential process of peer review is
a disservice to submitting authors. Co-
reviewing, even when trainee reviewers
have been named and credited, has the
potential to harm the careers of the sci-
entists who submitted the manuscript
under review in the event that poorly
informed, deficient reviews result in
rejections of papers that are crucial to
obtaining research funds, academic pro-
motion, professional reputation, salary
compensation, and so on. Rather, train-
ing in peer review practice and ethics
should be at least started, if not com-
pleted, before a young scientist has the
opportunity to review actual submitted
manuscripts and potentially alter that
process in a negative w ay.
Both ghostwriting and co-review-
ing can also have the effect of denying
trainees credit for the work they have
contributed. The potential for exploita-
tion of graduate student and postdoc
ghostwriters and co-reviewers is cer-
tainly a good reason for concern and
intervention, but the more significant
problem for academic science—one
that was not considered by the authors
of the eLife paper—is how these prac-
tices contribute to the general erosion
of academic integrity. Prospective study
authors submit their manuscripts for
peer review by professional journals
with the reasonable expectation and
agreement that their submissions will
be provided fair, expert, and confiden-
tial peer review by another qualified
member of their field. Ghostwriting and
co-review completely violate the profes-
sional ethics of this contract.
Ghostwriting is clearly unethical.
But arguing that co-reviewing is accept-
able because it trains ECRs to be better
manuscript reviewers is a convenient
rationalization to excuse a similarly
unethical practice. The place to teach
journal manuscript review is in open
working forums such as departmental
journal clubs, and in graduate-level
subject courses and special topics sem-
inars. It is interesting that the survey
in the eLife paper did not list graduate
classes as a response choice for where
respondents had obtained training for
reviewing manuscripts, though the
authors did propose the introduction
of compulsory teaching of manuscript
reviewing in graduate courses.Most journals provide review-
ers with detailed instructions for the
desired content and format of manu-
script reviews. What they do not do,
and should not be expected to do, is
teach reviewers how to evaluate and
judge the significance of manuscripts,
their technical quality, the sound-
ness of their arguments and conclu-
sions, the integrity of their conduct,
and their overall scientific value. This
expertise should be learned and devel-
oped in the course of an academic
career by attention to it at every stage
of training. And this essential aspect
of a scientist’s education needs to
be complemented with an emphasis
on proper ethical conduct in journal
manuscript review.The eLife paper authors rightly
advise that something needs to be done
about these aspects of peer review in
the interest of improving the quality
of academia. They recommend ending
the practice of ghostwriting and craft-
ing more-substantive guidelines around
co-reviewing. They suggest that journal
editors codify mechanisms for disclos-
ing and crediting the contributions of
noninvited reviewers, who are often
members of the invited reviewer’s lab.
But journals already have a process for
invited reviewers to decline the invita-
tion and propose alternative reviewers,
such as a trainee, that the journal editor
can then decide to accept or not. In this
w ay, interested and properly trained
ECRs can begin to establish their own
credentials in the eyes of journal editors
with appropriate instruction and guid-
ance, without compromising the integ-
rity of the journal manuscript review
process and of academia as a whole.
It is up to institutions of higher
learning and their members to remedy
the breach of publishing integrity that
ghostwriting and co-review cause. Often
in academia, ethical conduct is taught
but not practiced. A cultural shift toward
more-ethical practices will require that
all academics work to better align their
actions with the well-reasoned ideals of
ethical conduct. It is s imple; we need
to begin teaching ethical manuscript
review as a core principle of academic
life and responsibility. The eLife paper
shows that the scientific community is
ready for this change. College and uni-
versity faculty simply need to start teach-
ing it and following it themselves. gJames L. Sherley is the founder and
current director of Asymmetrex LLC, a
company focused on developing adult
tissue stem cell technologies and apply-
ing them to clinical drug discovery and
cellular medicine. Before starting Asym-
metrex, he spent more than 20 years as
a principal investigator leading labora-
tory research programs in cancer cen-
ter, independent research institute, and
research university settings.Whether co-reviewers
are named or not, this
practice, along with the
more patently unethical
ghostwriting, has no
defensible place in the
live arena of academic
publishing.