Does aggressiveness in evaluation improve the quality of scientific research?

Dear Sir, In recent years we have witnessed a great proliferation of publications in scientific journals about the peer-review system for evaluation of manuscripts intended to be published as articles, as well as for other scientific activities, such as research projects or postdoctoral positions (Lee, Sugimoto, Zhang, & Cronin, 2013, and references therein). In addition, numerous voices have been heard expressing their discontent with these processes, arguing that in an alternative open peer-review system, where identities are known, reviewers will produce better work that is more tactful and constructive (DeCoursey, 2006) and will avoid offhand, careless, or impolite comments (Ware, 2008). More and more, we are measured by parameters that evaluate the work of the scientist, his or her productivity in the form of articles, the application (transfer) of technology, etc. Parameters such as impact factors, h-index, journal ranking, and others, measure or determine the value of a researcher or research team in the eyes of the scientific community. Despite our awareness of the imperfections of the system, we perpetuate it rather than suffer the consequences, as much scientific as economic, for the continuity of the individual’s and the team’s research. This system is the brainchild of the scientists themselves, continually evaluating and judging one another; and it is here that we see the key to the entire problem. Society is in a state of constant change, not always for the better, and we have migrated from the view of the scientist as a distinct individual, detached from the realities of daily life and with a life philosophy and objectives very different from those of the rest of society, to the image of the aggressive scientist (the same phenomenon that occurred some years ago in the business world with the so-called “aggressive executives”), more concerned about knowing where to publish the results of research than with the results themselves. This aggressive approach to science is particularly evident in this form of evaluation. Even for a scientific journal, an instruction to the referees reads, “please do not use any words or expressions that might be considered offensive,” surely indicating that there have been experiences with aggressive reports. If the referee neglects his or her duty to act as a peer rather than a superior, then under the circumstances he or she may misuse the system. However, editors must also take a less passive or permissive approach in such situations; how often have we seen or received a report on an article that contains impolite words or phrases aimed at the authors of the work being evaluated? One might assume that referees behave in this way because of their position of power coupled with anonymity; however, similar behavior is encountered in public entrance exams, employment evaluation commissions, contracts and interviews, which are often conducted face to face. To some, criticism without moderation is perfectly acceptable. This tendency towards open criticism is positively correlated with the professional standing of the critic, and the security of their position. What is it that drives us to abandon the most elementary rules of good behavior in dealing with peers who have invested, as we have, a considerable part of their lives in academic training (not to be confused with education)? Why is it that when subjecting our colleagues to an evaluation (a process in which we ourselves are often the focus) such aggressive attitudes are unleashed? Do we think that this destructive criticism really represents a better strategy than the constructive approach from a position of mutual respect when aiming to improve the quality of scientific publications and research in general? In our competitiveness, need we belittle the work of others in order to exalt our own, as though the two were mutually exclusive? Without doubt, further studies would be required to find an answer to these questions, in order to improve the quality of the often criticized peer-review process.