Publishing, Objectivity, and Prestige

Disseminating scientific knowledge and teaching responsible conduct to people involved in research and scientific activities is a prerequisite for the efficiency and integrity of scientific information (16). However, one important challenge scientists face today is conveying scientific information to the public clearly and directly (3). Another challenge is related to peer-review biases (11, 12) and high rejection rates based on subjective and unfounded arguments, particularly in some 'snobbish' journals. In fact, some journals reject up to 90% of manuscripts received, as they like to boast at every opportunity. Most of the rejections are made at the editorial desk without real peer reviews. Editors and reviewers in such journals seem to be instructed to reject as many papers as possible as an irrational strategy for prestige and elitism, which, in my view, is contrary to the essence of the scientific foundations that should focus on objectivity, fairness, and validity of the reported findings and thoughts rather than on superficial 'prestige' and evanescent buzz. Some editors and reviewers seem to associate 'pub-lishable' papers to narrow and subjective criteria only. They consider that high rejection rates are a gage of high quality and that 'true' science is coming from star names or big labs only. Scientific knowledge, however, is much larger than this narrow-minded vision; it extends beyond the narrow confines of biology, chemistry, and physics to include theories, concepts, ideas, hypotheses, thoughts, understandings, etc. (14). Knowledge and scientific advancement also include the ability to analyze, to think critically, to think outside the box, to propose problem-oriented solutions, etc., which could be more useful and rewarding for the scientific community and society than studies reporting merely quantitative data and findings many of which are irreproducible or false in a number of cases (4). With such 'rejective' policy, bold, innovative challenges to either theoretical concepts or practical goals are frequently rejected as being contrary to dominant paradigms (13). It is, however, unlikely that the idiosyncrasies of the publication system would actually obstruct innovative ideas from dissemination; it is simply that their publication will be delayed (13), as most manuscripts are eventually published somewhere (10, 15). Although rejection hurts, it is not fatal (15). Indeed, there are many examples of papers rejected by the author's first choice of journal that have then been published elsewhere and profoundly changed the way we interpret the world around us (13). To reduce rejection biases, many potential solutions exist. …