One of the main ways that academic publishers add value is in facilitating the peer review process to ensure that journal articles meet required standards.
Along with all the other upheavals within the publishing industry, there was an idea that peer review could bypass this mediation, facilitated by the internet. Peer review is not perfect – it is time-consuming, often political and not without its flaws.
It appears that the time for this idea has not yet come, as trial by the innovative Nature journal of ‘open review’ has been ended because of the lack of participation. Big news, this even made it onto the BBC Today programme.
In all my research among academics, there is always a warm endorsement of peer review for maintaining high standards but these are busy people with reputations they try hard to build and protect. They often want some anonymity and often need to be encouraged or (kindly) pestered to do it by persuasive Editors.
Open review may be more successful within smaller communities of academics than the broader reach of Nature readers.
Love it? Hate it? We want to know: Leave us a comment (0 so far)