From Peer Review to Peer Recommendation

Ronald N. Kostoff1 asserts that the "filtering" role of peer review is the prime reason why it is so much needed. This is precisely why it is not. At least in its present form of anonymous, prepublication peer approval. Ironically, in the Internet age, printed specialized research journals have lost their major purpose of being vehicles of information. Their prime role, at the very best, is to serve as glorified lists of recommended reading. Instead, what we need is a "publish all" strateg

Alexander Berezin
Apr 16, 2000

Ronald N. Kostoff1 asserts that the "filtering" role of peer review is the prime reason why it is so much needed. This is precisely why it is not. At least in its present form of anonymous, prepublication peer approval.

Ironically, in the Internet age, printed specialized research journals have lost their major purpose of being vehicles of information. Their prime role, at the very best, is to serve as glorified lists of recommended reading. Instead, what we need is a "publish all" strategy, with only the most basic check on obscene and gratuitous material.

We need to replace prepublication peer review with a system of feedback bulletins (electronic and/or printed) where "peers" (or anyone for this matter) can freely put their (signed!) comments to the already published material. It is up to the readers to sort up credibility aspects, and undoubtedly most professionals will have no great difficulty with...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?