Academic Publishing: Reform peer review II

Here’s another wonderful insight and has importance for the oncologists, too. What is the purpose of the peer review?

Going from a manuscript to a published article involves many hours of reviewing work by the assigned peer reviewers and a significant time investment from the editor handling the submission. The editor and reviewers are all scientists themselves, so the epistemic opportunity cost of their reviewing work is significant: instead of reviewing, they could be doing more science.

Is Peer Review a Good Idea? | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science | Oxford Academic

As one prominent critic puts it, ‘we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects’ 

Here’s an excellent proposal:

  1. Broadcast it on a “pre-print” archive.
  2. Invite comments/criticism.
  3. Journals “curate” the content. This will have a potent effect on the democratising of science. You could see many “exchanges” popping up, but journals will have to curate them productively. Someone may contend that it would give tremendous leverage to the “editorial discretion” but I expect that they will be hard pressed to “show” why they preferred it from the “sea of sameness”.