Journal of Mountain Science的大部分编委和科学编辑均担任责任编辑（Editor），负责稿件的送审和与审稿人、作者的联络沟通。鉴于最近媒体和学术圈炒得火热的Springer-Nature撤销我国作者在《Tumor Biology》上发表的107篇论文的问题，以及作者推荐的审稿人可能存在的诸多问题，ScholarOne 稿件系统自动匹配推荐的审稿人可能存在的一些问题，我在本刊的编委编辑QQ群上进行了说明和提醒，由于还有不少编委和科学编辑没有加入QQ群, 因此，随后向所有编委和科学编辑发信进行提醒。以下是信的内容：

---------------------

Dear colleauges,

I am also looking forward to hearing from your valuable suggestions on how to make the peer-review more efficient and effective!

Best regards

QIU Dunlian

Guide to Editors20170418.pdf

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

信件发出后，好几位编委和科学编辑回复了邮年，有些表示将在同行外审时特别注意对审稿人背景的审查. 副主编Prof. Iain Taylor给我发来一封长信，对期刊审稿流程提出详细的建议。我将Prof. Iain Taylor的回信贴于此，供同行参考交流：

-------------------------------------

Dear Dunlian,

Now the bad news.

I am not at all surprised that Springer have unearthed reviewer fraud in the reviewer community.  Some countries just count papers listed for promotion or even funding and reward those names as authors.

All the wonderful materials in your attachments seem almost certain to open the door for fraud, because JMS has apparently found a remarkably complex process for peer reviewer selection.  The assumption is that peer reviewer selection should be run by a computer.

I suggest that you ignore the 'automated' systems and rely on one (possibly two) members of the Editorial Board , who are experts in the field to choose the peer reviewers.

The process relies on having Editorial Board members who are active in research. Throughout my 30+ years involved as author, peer reviewer, editorial board member, and editor-in-chief, I have found that the best papers come from active researchers whose submissions are professionally assessed by active experts in the field.

No matter how import an individual may be or be is seen to be influential, the journal editor MUST find peer reviewers who can deliver objective comment.  In practice this means that peer reviewers are generally trusted within their scientific community and are able to control their inevitable biases.

So, don't task a person who is known to be biased,  and avoid bureaucrats who may be famous but are no longer active.  Author suggestions may useful, but it is good to remember that ethical scientists do not wish to see their friends make fools of themselves by giving friendly reviews to bad science.

The following process may help the "Associate Editor" (or whatever title you give to the person who makes the recommendation to publish, revise or refuse a paper) to choose peer reviewers and act as they recommend.

1. A manager should check to see that the paper is written in decent English and conforms generally to the journal's style.

2. The Editor in chief now selects a member of the Editorial Board who is generally familiar with the scientific area of the research reported, to oversea the peer review process.

3. The chosen Board member determine who would be appropriate as a peer reviewers

4. Board member contacts peer reviewers by phone or e-mail and obtains agreement to do the job within 2-3 weeks or an agreed time

5. Board member follows up to get professionally responsible timeliness by reviewers.

6. Board member acts on peer reviewer comments (REMEMBER THIS IS NOT AN ELECTION).  Board member decides to ask for revisions BASED his/her assessment of the reviews.

7. Board member sends submission to authors explaining what changes are required.  This may require editing of reviews to avoid unprofessional remarks by the authors.

8. Revised manuscript may be acceptable when Board Members demands are achieved, but may or may not go back to one or both reviewers.

9. If revised paper is now acceptable, send the paper to the Editor-in-chief and explain why the Board Member is recommending publication/rejection.

10. Publisher then prepares the paper to publication.

Most publishers and research institutions just want happy researchers.  Damage done by fraud can easily be forgotten and politicians can be told that fraud is rare.  But we are all human and society at large suffers from false research.

Iain