Peering into peer review

Given that publications play an important role in the making or breaking of a person’s academic career, I think a reexamination of the peer-review process is in order. Over the years, as I’ve written and submitted papers, I have come across reasonable reviews, horrible reviews, and even personal attacks embedded in mediocre reviews. I suspect many researchers have received similar treatment. And in the end product of papers published in journals, we see the good and sometimes the awful.

I think it’s time for each of us to take responsibility for what we say. I propose that reviews and reviewers’ names be made public after each review is complete. The original intention of an anonymous review system, presumably, was that it would protect the writer and the reviewer, but the system has been abused.

Reviewers need to be responsible for what they say by revealing their identity and their comments. If that were done, I’m sure reviewers would be much more cautious about what they write, and we would see both the reviews and the published papers improve. Fewer erroneous reviews would be passed on authoritatively to the editors, and personal attacks in the reviews would cease. This revised system would require reviewers to focus on a paper’s science content rather than allowing them to air their personal feelings.

We have the resources for this task. With the growth of online journals, it won’t take much to post the paper, whether accepted or rejected, online with the reviews alongside it. That way, we can at least have an idea of whether the reviewers did their job properly and appropriately. We can also go a step further with online forums that allow reader feedback on papers and reviews.