How can scientific publishing help promote a more open and tolerant scientific communication system while also maintaining quality? The history of science shows that on many occasions innovative discoveries (Horrobin, 1990) or important articles were rejected by referees and editors of academic journals (Campanario, 1995). At other times, challengers to dominant theories and paradigms have had a hard time getting published in mainstream journals (Martin, 1999). These dissidents sometimes complain about censorship in science. Such complaints can reduce public confidence in science by creating an image of corruption and abuse by gatekeepers of orthodoxy.

          Editors of academic journals argue that they have to reject many papers because they contain mistakes, are not of sufficient quality or novelty, or just because journal space is scarce. They also want to protect readers from bad science. Readers trust academic journals when they believe that referees are doing their work properly. However, this process sometimes causes editors to reject pathbreaking work: had the authors of some important discoveries not persisted, some Nobel-Prize-winning contributions might have been effectively suppressed (Campanario, 1995).

        How can the gatekeeping role of journal editors and referees be squared with openness to unorthodox but potentially important contributions? Some attempts and experiences exists on publication of non-accepted papers (for example, Marshall, 2003). For example articles posted on Netprints “have not yet been accepted for publication by a peer reviewed journal”.  (http://clinmed.netprints.org/). Another cheap and simple way to avoid scientific suppression is for every issue of a journal to devote a page to a list of authors and manuscript titles that have been recently rejected plus a full URL address in the journal webpage from which an electronic version of the rejected manuscript can be downloaded. Authors could choose between this approach and the traditional system in which their manuscripts are processed confidentially. If they prefer the new option, their rejected manuscripts would be labelled as "rejected but available". Readers interested in these manuscripts could download them and judge at their own risk. Even better, if referees agree, readers would also be entitled to web access to referees' reports to discover the "mistakes" in the manuscript or the reasons for the rejection.

          With this new system, many innovative and unorthodox papers would be made available to interested readers; in some cases they could be inspiring. For many challengers of dominant paradigms, having papers "rejected but available" would be enough to announce their ideas to the world and their complaints would be avoided. Journal editors could experiment with this system that would allow more openness in science.

          Given that a public rejection can be embarrassing, only scientists who strongly believe in the soundness of their work would be likely to follow the new track. Journal editors could ask authors to reveal whether any submission on a topic had been previously "rejected but available"; with access to referees' reports, this information would reduce the global workload on editors and referees. Having such a publication outlet could well increase the amount of more speculative work. Charges of censorship and abuse of power by editors would be easily refuted.

A by-product of the above approach is that referees would be more accountable. This new method would also avoid the risk that authors are forced to publish their articles in obscure and/or inadequate journals after some rejections. Another by-product is that many manuscripts that are considered good but not good enough to warrant publication, because of lack of space in the journal or other reasons, could be still be made available to readers in the journal website. As it is often said, the reader is the ultimate referee.

        References

Campanario, J.M. 1995. On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication, 16, 304-325.

Horrobin, D 1990 The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA, 263, 1438-1441.

Marshall, T.G. 2003 ‘Author pays’ must have ‘Open peer review’ (http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7382/182/b#29195 ).

Martin, B. 1999. Suppressing research data: methods, context, accountability, and responses. Accountability in Research,  6, 333-372.