Sir — As part of the continuing debate over the future of scientific publications,I wish to make two comments and toadvance a suggestion.

First, what is the difference between apublished paper and a paper that has been uploaded by its authors onto someelectronic archive? The difference is thatone has been refereed, the other has not.So, refereeing is clearly at the core of thescientific publishing business.

Second, what are the calls on a scientist’stime? These, in order, are: (1) to bringmore money into the laboratory; (2) towrite and publish more papers and

conference communications; (3) to writereports for the funding agencies; (4) to getsome science done; (5) to teach and/orcarry out administration; (6) to sit oncommittees that distribute the money; and(7) to referee papers.

It is a real temptation today for a refereeto clear a paper off his or her desk bywriting a casual and ill-considered report.If refereeing is to be done better than oflate (and recent scandals involving famouslaboratories are revealing), it must moveup the list of priorities.

The best solution would be to includerefereeing as a factor in assessment for

recruitment and promotion, and perhapseven for the allocation of funds. Thisrequires a measure to be devised,which should probably be based oninformation provided by the qualityscientific journals.

If scientific publishers wish to avoidembarrassing fiascos and to ensure that the publication process remains reliable,they would do well to address this issue.Otherwise, the core of their business is at risk.Jean-Patrick ConneradeEuroscience, 8 rue des Ecrivains,F-76000 Strasbourg, France

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 427 | 15 JANUARY 2004 | www.nature.com/nature 196

Eastern Europe: progressstifled by the old guardSir — Your Editorial “Eastern promise”(Nature 426, 369; 2003) argued thatintegrating several eastern Europeancountries into the European Union (EU)might boost European science owing totheir untapped human potential. Yousuggest that integration will be a short-term challenge for the EU, but willultimately strengthen it.

As a scientist from Poland — one ofthe EU members-to-be — who has worked both in Western Europe and now in theUnited States, I must strongly disagree with your conclusion.

It is true that there is great humanpotential in eastern Europe. However, youseriously underestimate the power of thescientific establishment in those countries— ranks of professors promoted duringcommunist times — to hinder progress.Educated, hard-working scientists fleewhenever possible, either by abandoningscience altogether or by emigrating, usuallyto the United States, because the jobmarket is tough in the EU. Few are braveenough to fight to work in their homeland.

The only way to unleash any hiddenhuman potential is by drastic reform ofscience and higher education in countriessuch as Poland. Sadly, there are no signs ofchange on the horizon. Western scientistsrarely understand how science works in the east. In Poland it is hierarchical,immobile, hermetic and gerontocratic.Recognition comes from having aprofessorship, and the postdoctoratequalification called habilitation, not frompublications in internationally recognizedjournals with high impact factors. Ascientific career after PhD and habilitationdepends on personal and political

connections. Future professors require acertain number of publications, so theypublish worthless papers in countlessPolish ‘scientific’ journals.

Once they have been promoted, theprofessors are no longer required to do any real research. Their titles are bestowedfor life, and a head of department keepsthat position until retirement. Professorsusually work in the university where theycompleted their undergraduate, graduateand PhD studies, where everybody knowseverybody else. Outsiders are rare andnepotism is common. Entire generationsgain professorships because they arerelatives or favourites of previousprofessors. Most research money isdistributed by arbitrary administrativedecisions, not as peer-reviewed grants.

Polish universities are ruled bydemocratic elections, but the scientificestablishment is not interested in change.Some professors are creating the illusion ofreform under the auspices of the presidentof Poland — but it is difficult to expectthem to undermine their own existence.

Integrating eastern European scienceinto the EU will do more harm than goodunless the EU enforces real reforms inthose countries. To thrive, science ineastern Europe must become part of theinternational scientific community: thehabilitations and titular professorshipsmust be abolished, scientific merit must be the only measure of an individual’squalifications, and money for researchmust be distributed by a competitionamong peer-reviewed applications.

I fear that Europe lacks the political willto modernize science. Even within the EU,anachronisms in several countries maketheir science less competitive than that ofthe United States.

One day I would like to work again inEurope, especially in Poland. But as it is

now, the heart of science beats on the otherside of the Atlantic.Cezary WójcikUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center,Department of Physiology, 5323 Harry HinesBoulevard, Dallas, Texas 75390-9040, USA

Eastern Europe needs acompetitive atmosphere Sir — Eastern European science is under-funded and lags behind the major players.However, as your Editorial suggests (Nature426, 369; 2003), the great human potentialin terms of qualified scientists and excellentstudents provides a solid basis for growth.

During my scientific career I have hadthe chance to work both in the EuropeanUnion (EU) and in Slovakia, which is dueto join the EU this year. In my view, theproblem is not only financial, as there arewell-funded laboratories in eastern Europewith state-of-the-art equipment. What ismissing is the competitive atmospherefound in top-class research centres. Foreignscientists are very rare in eastern Europeancountries, which make no significant effortto attract experienced scientists from abroad— unlike emerging economies in Asia (see,for example, Nature 420, 257; 2002).

One solution would be to establish newinternational research centres in easternEurope. Apart from the InternationalInstitute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw (Nature 421, 471–472; 2003),genuine international research centres havebeen absent in these countries. Establishingsuch centres will help prevent the braindrain and will be an effective way toharness talent in eastern Europe.Juraj GreganIMP (Research Institute of Molecular Pathology),Dr. Bohr-Gasse 7, A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Scandals stem from the low priority of peer reviewGood refereeing should be recognized and rewarded, with help from the journals.

15.1 correspondence 196 MH 12/1/04 7:00 pm Page 1

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group