23 : Peer review : some questions from Socrates

Editor of scientific journal: I never expected to bump into you in Tavistock Square, Socrates. But I'm pleased to see you, because I have a perplexing problem that I'd like to discuss. Socrates: I shall do my best. Editor: You know, of course, that scientific papers submitted to journals are usually sent out for peer review? Socrates: Such a system was never used in Athens. But I think you refer to the way in which editors request someone working in the same field to comment on the originality, reliability, and value of the work described in a paper in order to help them decide whether to publish it or not. I believe that this procedure is used not only by editors of learned journals but also by officials who dispense money from the public purse to scientists who seek funds to pursue their quest for knowledge. Editor: You are quite right, Socrates. Peer review is used very widely in the research community. It is generally assumed that the quality of scientific work can best be judged by people with a specialised knowledge of the subject. Socrates: Your use of the word assumed surprises me. I had thought that scientists were by nature sceptical and that they subjected both their hypotheses and their methods to rigorous empirical tests. I had expected that a procedure, which as you say is widely used in the scientific community, would have been exhaustively appraised. Editor: I have to admit that we have been culpably slow to see the need for this. But we are trying to catch up. Editors and scientists are endeavouring to find ways of evaluating and improving the peer review process. Socrates: That seems admirable, if belated. Can you now explain what is perplexing you? Editor: We are concerned that the standard of the reports that we receive from our peer reviewers is not always very high. Many of the men and women whom we ask to review for us are busy people. Perhaps they don't have the time or motivation to do the job as well as they should.