ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Reviewing Peer Review

Reviewing Peer Review In response to the Closing Bell article in Jan. 27, 2003,1 I often think that the peer review system being blinded only one way (i.e., against the submitter but not the reviewer) is flawed and should be made transparent. Unblinding peer review may make the scientific process more adversarial, since rejections can be taken personally against a reviewer. Another potential disadvantage would be that collaborations between related labs might become harder to come by. Howev

The Scientist Staff

Reviewing Peer Review


In response to the Closing Bell article in Jan. 27, 2003,1 I often think that the peer review system being blinded only one way (i.e., against the submitter but not the reviewer) is flawed and should be made transparent. Unblinding peer review may make the scientific process more adversarial, since rejections can be taken personally against a reviewer. Another potential disadvantage would be that collaborations between related labs might become harder to come by. However, the advantages are that this may weed out fraudulent science and criminal activity sooner, and reviewers/ editors are compelled to make more honest, fair, and knowledgeable assessments of submitted manuscripts. If this is an unreasonable suggestion, then perhaps peer review should be blinded both ways to be fair to everyone.

Romulo de Castro Jr., PhD
The Burnham Institute
La Jolla, Calif.
jongdc@burnham.org

***

I wonder if we should consider fraud a...

Interested in reading more?

Magaizne Cover

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?
ADVERTISEMENT