Peer Review: A Generational Difference

Peer Review serves a purpose if and only if it results in an improved presentation of factual research. A good peer review should be accomplished as follows:

1. Managed by a know and credible Editor
2. Performed by those expert in the field in an unbiased manner
3. Provide any objections in a credible fashion and if the work was done previously the reviewer should present references substantiating such claims.
4. An ability to seek an arbitration if there is a material difference of opinion.
5. Some openness on the part of who the reviewers are.

In fact I have often argued for full openness in knowing who the reviewers are. That way the reviewer puts their reputation on the line in the review. One could keep the process confidential within the individuals but not knowing who the reviewer is often leads to negative reviews with no basis. However in all cases the process is confidential.

Now along comes PubPeer. In a Wired article they are taking the approach of the current generation, namely allowing anyone in a totally anonymous manner to review an article. It is akin to so many other social media mores, namely throwing an unsubstantiated opinions on a wall and seeing what sticks. It is however generational, it is the point of view that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else. In fact a knowledgeable reviewer is a benefit, some reviewer with a bone to pick is not.

They state:

PubPeer works because we allow anonymous comments. Without that anonymity, most scientists would fear professional retribution if they criticized their peers’—or perhaps their future employers’—work. But with that anonymity, our users have generated a steady stream of comments highlighting problems in basic scientific research on any number of topics: cancer, stem cells, diabetes, and more. 

I would strongly disagree. In fact public anonymity just creates noise. There is no professionalism and no way to determine whether the reviewer has any true expertise in this area. 

At another extreme is the posting of one's research as it is in progress and allowing people to send the writer their comments. It creates a dialog, it allows for the correcting of errors, before publication.  Yes that approach is different and it flies in the face of first to publish but it is a research community approach. 

In my opinion the above mentioned approach of anonymous reviewers is highly counter productive. Yet it is an expression of that generational view that every child get on the Honor Roll, and perhaps we can send out bumper stickers, "My Child is an Anonymous Reviewer".