Peer review is a black box. Let’s open it up
A new paper argues that journal publishers should become much more transparent about their peer review practices.
Peer review is everybody’s favorite punching bag in science these days, and for good reason: As we and others have written, it’s secretive, susceptible to bias, and often appears to fail at keeping scientific publishing rigorous and honest.
But peer review is essential for the smooth operation of the scientific publishing apparatus. Without the imprimatur, however imperfect, of independent scholars, research papers would all in effect be titled “Trust us …”
The problem is, we have
