Are You a Good Citizen of Science

In the past I have pondered this important, but perhaps a bit nebulous question: Am I a good citizen of science? So I ask you: Are you a good citizen of science? This is an intriguing and interesting question on which we should all reflect and one that I would hope receives a resounding, ‘‘you bet I am!’’, from everyone. (For those unfamiliar with the movie Fargo, in the upper Midwestern part of the United States that would be a ‘‘you betcha!’’) But are you and I really good science citizens? What exactly does a good citizen of science do, or, on the contrary, not do? Science citizenship can take on many different forms, from citing papers from a competing scientist to agreeing to review yet another paper on top of the many other commitments one has on hand; from mentoring young colleagues, to offering a colleague a helping hand, to sharing reagents with a no-strings-attached policy, and working to enhance one’s own field by doing the drudgery of society work. In the end, good science citizenship is offering our precious time in a selfless manner to help others in our respective fields. Yet, are we good citizens? This brings me to one of the fundamental cornerstones of science, peer-review. I wish I had a quarter, whether it be in Euros, US, or Canadian currency, every time someone uttered: ‘‘I have a grant due in 2 months, so I cannot review that manuscript.’’ Or ‘‘I have a meeting in 2 weeks; sorry I just cannot review that manuscript.’’ Amazingly, many individuals who are too busy and too overcommitted to review a manuscript, have no problem burdening the peer-review system with their own manuscripts. They have no problem if their equally busy peers who have meetings to attend, grants to write, and a family with which they might want to see, take time to review a manuscript of theirs. Yet, isn’t this a profession in which being overcommitted, understaffed, and underfunded is the norm? So why do many of our colleagues think they should forgo participating in the peer-review process, yet subject others to reviewing their own manuscripts? Perhaps it is selfishness or just plain old-fashioned greed for more time devoted to their own pursuits? Regardless, this is a growing problem not just at Lipids, but at many other journals, and something with which editorial board members have repeatedly dealt and uttered complaints about dealing with so many reluctant reviewers. So, to each reader I offer a suggestion to actively participate in the peer-review process. My ‘‘Golden Rule’’ for peer review is quite simple: Review at least four times the number of manuscripts that you submit in a year. When you are truly pressed for time, discuss with a young colleague, a student or a post-doctoral fellow in your lab the possibility of taking on a peer-review assignment. I have found that many early career scientists—including graduate students—make the best reviewers. Taking this approach will actually expand the vista of your citizenship as you help mentor a young scientist in the peer-review process. This helps educate them on the process as well as providing real experiential learning on how to write (or not to write) a manuscript. So are you a good science citizen? I hope you are and if not, perhaps you’ll see the value of being a good citizen and you’ll start down the path of recovery so that you, too, can again feel that exhilaration of being a science citizen in good standing. E. J. Murphy (&) Department of Pharmacology, Physiology, and Therapeutics, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA e-mail: eric.murphy@med.und.edu