How do we fix the broken peer review?

Abstract

The main goal of peer review of scientific publications is the evaluation of the quality and scientific soundness of research. In the last few decades the efficiency of this process has substantially decreased: one of the reasons is the growing number of scientific publications in relation to the number of active researchers. Many critics claim that peer review is broken, and that it needs to be changed completely – or even re-invented. These comments often stem from the lack of understanding of what peer review is, and seeing this process as the only and the final test of scientific merit. Peer review, however, is only a preliminary evaluation. Sporadic cases of articles for which peer review clearly failed are caused by the errors of individual referees, who are either overworked or don’t understand the philosophy of peer review, rather than the systemic failure of the process. The solution then is not a complete overhaul of peer review, but simply better training of the prospective reviewers.