Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Kentucky123]

The following from the article provoke some other questions

2) What is the process to be published?

The authors write the article, format it according to the standards of the chosen journal and submit it online. The publishers assign a number to the submitted article and offer it to several "peers" who agree or not to evaluate the manuscript. When the referees (usually 2 or 3) have finished, they complete an online evaluation page, with a list of standard yes/no questions on the quality or originality of the work (rated from 1 to 5) and can also send their remarks/questions, intended for the authors. The referees must indicate whether they accept the manuscript as it is, accept it with minor modifications, accept it with major modifications, refuse the article. The publisher takes note of these reports and sends them to the authors. If the article is not rejected, the authors must then respond to the remarks and make the requested changes, provided that they are relevant. Responses and edited manuscripts are resubmitted online, and reviewers have access to this and can make a second set of comments (not always the case, sometimes the editor makes the decision at that time, without re-consulting referees). A rejected article may be submitted to another journal. An accepted article will then follow the publication process (last proofreading by the authors, online publication and assignment of a unique number, payment if open access).

3) Are the authors directly paid for?

No. Publishing is part of a researcher's job, who is not specifically paid for an article. The number and level of publications by a researcher or a team is an important element of evaluation, and therefore impacts their ability to obtain future funding.

4) Is it necessary to pay to be published?

When articles are available in "open access" for readers, it means that the authors have paid. The sum is usually around 2,000 – 2,500 dollars, depending on the journal, and up to 12,000 dollars! With some journals, “open access” is the only publishing option.

5) What does “peer reviewed” mean?

It means that the article has been reviewed and critiqued by 2 or 3 “experts” in the field. Note that a researcher may be asked to review an article on a subject on which he is not at all an expert. When an editor sends an email to a researcher as an “invitation to review a manuscript”, the researcher (the “peer”) is perfectly free to accept or not. Including if they in fact are not an expert in the field. Most of the time I refuse because I know nothing about the topic or methodology.

No one evaluates the content of a referee's comments.

6) Does every scientific paper need to be peer reviewed?

This is the classic process of scientific publication, which “ensures” a certain level of relevance and quality. Possibilities of “pre-print” articles are possible, but this remains a little marginal and really less well considered.

7) Who are the reviewers?

The “peers” are scientists solicited by publishers for their expertise in the field. But it is also the case that “peers” are not necessarily experts in that field, but because of their existing relationship with the publisher (they may have submitted research in the past), they are asked to review a submission.

8) How many “peers” are there?

There are 2 or 3 for an article.

9) How do they work and how long do they have to review the paper?

They evaluate the work done in depth or not, it relies on the professional conscience of each reviewer.

10) Are they paid? If not paid, why do “peers” accept the reviewing work?

They are not paid to do this. Depending on the publishing groups, they can get a percentage discount on publishing future articles. The evaluation of articles is something essential to the functioning of research today and most researchers willingly lend themselves to it, despite the time it can take if things are done rigorously.

As a researcher, you may need to read a paper on the same topic you are reviewing, for instance to understand the data or the methodology. If you are reviewing quite the same data, it may be a way to waste time on the article for which you are referee or simply to refuse it without honest justification. But, if the paper is from friends, you can agree to be the referee and then accept the paper even if it is not deserved.

Reviewers typically have 3 weeks for a first evaluation. For the 2nd round, some publishers ask to respect a deadline of a few days, with very frequent reminders.

11) Is this process anonymous?

The process is not necessarily anonymous, the journals sometimes display the name of the reviewers for a given article, but this is a choice of the reviewer, who can therefore refuse.

12) Can “peers” kill a paper?

A referee can completely destroy an article, without true arguments.

If a referee doesn’t want a paper to be published, they just need to check the "refusal" box on the website of the journal. The reason can be as poor as “it is not in the scope of the journal”, or no reason is given at all.

13) Who are the Editors?

The editors of scientific journals are researchers in the field concerned. They are paid for this function and decide what is published or not in their journal.

14) Who owns scientific journals?

See this excellent article by Xavier Bazin, a French scientific journalist, author of 2 books with very, very strong work.

https://www.xavier-bazin.fr/vi-comment-les-grandes-revues-medicales-fabriquent-une-fausse-science-des-vaccins/

And yet, in fact, these newspapers are intimately linked to Big Pharma's interests.

First, because they agree to insert advertisements for the pharmaceutical industry in their columns.

But above all because these medical journals practice without restraint the very lucrative system of "reprinting".

So the editors of the journals control the publication schedule. Why bother submitting for peer review when Big Pharma has control? No wonder nothing of substance has been published on PDD for AVXL.