I have working on the series of articles looking at the reform from the peer-review. There are certain takeaways and apprehensions and the following serve as a good mind-fodder. Issues from now on are:
- Peer review as practised is important because it forces scientists to read and review each other’s work. True or not?
- Will it affect hiring or promotion?
- How will the exchanges of pre-publication help to discover content based on merit?
- Will it detect fraud or other scientific malpractice?
When we consider changes in the incentive structures, we are fearful of the fact whether it would provide scientific inputs efficiently. The current model “grown” because there was none other. I am questioning the process why we should persist with it because it hasn’t benefitted the people in interim. I have heard editors exhorting the interested candidates to sign up for “peer review” but that’s just being a nameless, faceless provider for the plumbing. It should reward science for the sake of its growth. Instead, the current system only provides a duelling ground. Scientific careers advances on the reputations gleaned from academic publishing; it is fair that we structure the system, so it provides an equal footing to everyone.