Not Reinventing the Wheel<\/h2>\n
Transferable peer review<\/a> is a process that discards the work of qualified peers just to start all over again which has never made much sense, other than to underline the territorial prerogative of academic publishing houses in never sharing anything with the competition. As a result, researchers who already resented the time delay of peer review have had to face the excruciating prospect of doubling or even tripling that delay if they are rejected from their first choice.<\/p>\n In January 2014, Wiley launched a pilot process<\/a> for transferable peer reviews<\/em> for nine of their high impact neuroscience journals<\/a> whereby, if a submitted paper is rejected, the authors are given the option to transfer to another Wiley neuroscience journal with the full transparency of the prior peer review. The editor of that alternate journal can still request additional peer review, but the pilot at least demonstrates a commitment to faster peer reviews.<\/p>\n Other solutions to the same problem have started to appear:<\/p>\n While any movement on faster peer reviews is likely to be received as a positive, the territorial issue still prevails. Publishing houses are apparently open to examining their internal processes, but the prospect of a third-party shared solution seems to remain too far in the future. Why not set up a separate peer review center where research papers and manuscripts can be reviewed<\/a> prior to submission to a subject-specific journal?<\/p>\n As the \u2018first pass\u2019 of review, the majority of errors should be caught and brought to the attention of the authors who can fix them prior to submission to their journal of choice for a final and presumably much shorter review by specialists.<\/p>\n Frustrated researchers would probably be willing to pay for such expedience, which would allow appropriately qualified reviewers to be paid for their expertise, rather than the current system that remains dependent on finding unpaid volunteers who wish to give back to the academic community.<\/p>\n![\"read](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/Banner-Read.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAlternate Approaches<\/h2>\n
\n
There’s Still Room to Improve<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"