@AllenNeuroLab

@eLife @eLife I share your goals to improve scientific publishing! Can you please respond to these simple suggestions: (1) democratize the editors through elections and impose term limits, and (2) make triage decisions public allowing the community to scrutinize the process. Thanks!

@eLife thanks for your reply. Triage is the real issue in scientific publishing, not reviews. Decisions are made in the way you describe in proverbial back rooms about scientific worthiness of a paper for review without public scrutiny but with public dollars. Journals need to publish info on the submission, substantive reason for triage, and who made the decision. Without this scientific review transparency has not been achieved.

@eLife Thoughts on this? How does the scientific community and scientific funders know triage is being done in a fair and unbiased way without providing public information on both the desk rejections and those sent out for review without having detailed information on both outcomes?

@eLife Diversity in the editorial board is good of course, but democracy is equally important. Will the selections be made by all current editors or a few people?