Last week we wrote about a Nature editorial that explored how social media may change the peer-review process. Richard Grant, PhD, taking a different position than the Nature editorial, writes that the peer-review process is far from crisis:
Look at it another way: you can already publish your manuscript, open access, with no peer review (or editing, come to that). It's as easy as typing a blog post. Why aren't people flocking to do this, if it's the way forward? Because peer review is the standard supported by the vast majority of practising scientists, and they recognize the value in it. And don't say to me that the grant funders won't stand for it: there are plenty of scientists who don't depend on competitive grants.
I'm not denying there are problems with the current system. The whole anonymity/open review argument is not settled, not by a long chalk. There will be the vindictive and the inexperienced in any human endeavour. Peer review is often deemed - especially by the media and the loons (coughhomeopathscough)--to be a mark of correctness. And we all know it's not - it's not even a quality control stamp. . . .