Publishing, the Peer Review Process, and the Impact of the Internet

What's it all about?

Publishing scholarly work is at the heart of the academic institution. Indeed, one typically trades the high salary of industry or private practice for a lower salary at an academic center in order to have time for research -- the opportunity of finding out something new. But publish you must, for how else can anyone else know what you are doing? Depending on your field, you may present your projects at Scientific Meetings (as I like to do), write a book, or publish in a respected, "peer reviewed" journal. Perhaps you will do all three.

What's at stake?

Prestige and promotions -- and even ultimately employment -- are all usually related to an individual's publication record at high-powered academic facilities. The total number of publications is of paramount importance -- quality is more elusive and difficult to measure. In the best circumstance, publications lead to grants which lead to more publications which lead to more grants, etc.

What is the researcher's point of view?

Most researchers want to see their results in print. Indeed, most would want to be first with a discovery.

What stands in the way?

Before a paper can be published in a scientific or medical journal, it must be reviewed by colleagues ("peers") who are ostensibly knowledgeable with whatever it is you are writing about.

In theory, this makes excellent sense. Does your data support your conclusions? Is your reasoning flawed? Have you considered the results of other investigators which challenge your findings? Your colleagues are in the best position to make these judgments.

Does the system work well?

In some sense or other, peer review has been in effect for a hundred -- some would say, hundreds -- of years. It works well because most of what appears in the scientific and medical literature is hardly revolutionary. Rather, the articles fill in little patches on a broad canvas sketched by great minds. The articles tend to answer questions like, "If it is true in the hand, is it also true in the foot?" or "Do these two drugs work better together than they do separately?"

This information is crucial to the daily practice of science and medicine and all professionals had best stay informed. Peer review works best in the setting of adding another digit to the value of pi.

Where does the system break down?

Although one might hope that the old would embrace the ideas and results of the new, the sad fact is that it does not. At its worst, peer review tends exclude truly innovative ideas and controversial results.

Peer review has rejected for publication papers that ultimately received the Nobel Prize. It rewards the Salieris and totally misses the Mozarts. Rare is the work that is remembered throughout time that receives the praise of the critics of its own time.

Role of the Internet.

The Internet provides a whole new way of reaching one's colleagues. It is nothing less than a revolution in publishing. It does an end-run around the judges of scientific propriety and makes you, the individual, the final arbiter, which is as it should be.

• I predict that more and more articles will be published on the Web, with the traditional peer review by-passed entirely.
  • The audience to whom the publishing is directed will set the standards of quality necessary for articles to receive serious consideration within the group.

• Traditional peer reviewed journal articles are actually many months old when published. Publishing on the Web will eliminate this delay.

• Publishing on the Web will also eliminate those giant journals sent to our homes and offices. What a waste of trees! Soon we will be able to create our own journals with the contents specified by us.

• There will be many attempts to control the freedom of speech, press, and information provided by the Web. For our own sake, we must resist this.

revised -- December, 1999
revised -- December, 2002

Points of view -->