“Are you satisfied with the current scientific publishing process?” asks Anna Kushnir, a student at Harvard Medical School, in the “Publishing in the new Millennium” forum on Nature Network (see http://tinyurl.com/2eoz4b). Maxine Clarke of Nature responded that most published authors say that the peer-review and publication process has improved their work, and some authors even say decisions not to publish work, when they include constructive criticism, have helped them to improve their papers for publication elsewhere.

Craig Rowell, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, replied that although the peer-review process does a very good job of quality control, people sometimes forget about the “gate-keeper” role of the editor. Even when reviewers like a paper, if the editor disagrees, the journal might not accept it. The role of the editor is to decide, after review, whether a paper in which the science is technically correct meets the publication criteria of that particular journal. Unfortunately, writes Craig, some mentors do not explain this to their students, let alone keep it in mind for themselves.