More transparency in the peer review process will help researchers to study peer review and improve its quality and fairness.

After working for about a decade as a journal editor, I’m concerned that peer review is not the safeguard against bad science that we think it is. I’m convinced that peer review could be a lot better and that increased transparency in the process is key to improving it.

Peer review is an obvious improvement over earlier forms of research evaluation, which involved semiformal groups of senior scholars making decisions about which papers deserved publication. These decisions were partly based on authors’ status and reputation—the quintessential old boys’ network. It is not hard to imagine how this process might have seemed an acceptable form of quality control when science as an intellectual pursuit was a privilege for an elite. But as scientific research became more widely accessible, scholars needed more rigorous ways to distinguish good science from bad science. Such a need led to peer review as we know it today—a more formalized process that includes some precautions against bias and corruption [1].

But how well does our modern peer review system work? Does it keep bias, misconduct, and errors at bay? Alas, we don’t have enough data to answer these questions. As scientists, we frequently advocate for evidence-based practice, but we don’t always practice what we preach when it comes to keeping our own houses in order.

References

1. M. Baldwin, “In referees we trust?” Phys. Today 70, No. 2, 44 (2017).