Debate
Nature's
peer review debate
Peer review is commonly accepted as an essential part of scientific publication. But the ways peer review is put into practice vary across journals and disciplines. What is the best method of peer review? Is it truly a value-adding process? What are the ethical concerns? And how can new technology be used to improve traditional models?
This
Nature
web debate consists of 22 articles of analyses and perspectives from leading scientists, publishers and other stakeholders to address these questions. Key links and relevant articles from our archive are listed below, with further resources available through
Connotea
. Visit the
Peer-to-Peer blog
to join the debate.
Overview
Nature
's trial of open peer review
Despite enthusiasm for the concept, open peer review was not widely popular, either among authors or by scientists invited to comment.
Sarah Greaves, Joanna Scott, Maxine Clarke, Linda Miller, Timo Hannay, Annette Thomas, Philip Campbell
doi
:10.1038/nature05535
Full Text
Systems
Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature
The Internet is allowing much more interactive science publishing
Theodora Bloom
doi
:10.1038/nature05030
Full Text
Trusting data?s quality
Database publication presents unique challenges for the peer reviewer
Brenda Riley
doi
:10.1038/nature04993
Full Text
Opening up the process
A hybrid system of peer review
Erik Sandewall
doi
:10.1038/nature04994
Full Text
An open, two-stage peer-review journal
The editors of
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
explain their journal?s approach.
Thomas Koop and Ulrich Pöschl
doi
:10.1038/nature04988
Full Text
Reviving a culture of scientific debate
Can 'open peer review' work for biologists?
Biology Direct
is hopeful.
Eugene Koonin, Laura Landweber, David Lipman and Ros Dignon
doi
:10.1038/nature05005
Full Text
Quality and value
The true purpose of peer review
What you can't measure, you can't manage: the need for quantitative indicators in peer review
Charles Jennings
doi
:10.1038/nature05032
Full Text
Models of quality control for scientific research
Tom Jefferson
doi
:10.1038/nature05031
Full Text
How can we get the best out of peer review?
A recipe for good peer review
Trish Groves
doi
:10.1038/nature04995
Full Text
Statistics in peer review
Researchers need reviewers to check their stats.
David Ozonoff
doi
:10.1038/nature04989
Full Text
How can we research peer review?
Improving the peer-review process relies on understanding its context and culture.
doi
:10.1038/nature05006
Joan E. Sieber
Full Text
Ethics
Trust and reputation on the web
Online publications have several ways to give themselves a good name.
William Arms
doi
:10.1038/nature05035
Full Text
Detecting misconduct
Does a digital workflow make it easier to detect ethical breeches in peer review?
Dale Benos
doi
:10.1038/nature04996
Full Text
What is it for?
Analysing the purpose of peer review.
Elizabeth Wager
doi
:10.1038/nature04990
Full Text
Increasing accountability
What authors, editors and reviewers should do to improve peer review.
Kirby Lee and Lisa Bero
doi
:10.1038/nature05007
Full Text
Technical solutions
Evolving peer review for the internet
Peer review needs to adapt to the pace and volume of information published online
Richard Akerman
doi
:10.1038/nature04997
Full Text
Wisdom of the crowds
Scientific publishers should let their online readers become reviewers.
Chris Anderson
doi
:10.1038/nature04992
Full Text
Certification in a digital era
What functions do we take for granted in print?
Herbert Van de Sompel
doi
:10.1038/nature05008
Full Text
Perspective
The case for group review
Peer review would be improved by discussions across the lab.
Debomoy Lahiri
doi
:10.1038/nature05033
Full Text
Peer review of interdisciplinary scientific papers
Boundary-crossing research meets border patrol
Christopher Lee
doi
:10.1038/nature05034
Full Text
'I don?t know what to believe'
Understanding peer review is key to developing informed opinions about scientific research.
Tracey Brown
doi
:10.1038/nature04998
Full Text
The pros and cons of open peer review
Should authors be told who their reviewers are?
Thomas DeCoursey
doi
:10.1038/nature04991
Full Text
Does peer review mean the same to the public as it does to scientists?
Even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.
John Moore
doi
:10.1038/nature05009
Full Text