PURPOSE: This letter briefly reviews ideas about the purpose and benefits of peer review and reaches some idealistic conclusions about the process. METHOD: The author uses both literature review and meditation born of long experience. RESULTS: From a cynical perspective, peer review constitutes an adversarial process featuring domination of the weak by the strong and exploitation of authors and reviewers by editors and publishers, resulting in suppression of new ideas, delayed publication of important research, and bad feelings ranging from confusion to fury. More optimistically, peer review can be viewed as a system in which reviewers and editors volunteer thousands of hours to work together with authors, to the end of furthering human knowledge. CONCLUSION: Editors and authors will encounter both peer-review cynics and idealists in their careers, but in the author's experience the second are far more prevalent. Reviewers and editors can help increase the positive benefits of peer review (and improve the culture of science) by viewing the system as one in which they work with authors on behalf of high-quality publications and better science. Authors can contribute by preparing papers carefully prior to submission and by interpreting reviewers' and editors' suggestions in this collegial spirit, however difficult this may be in some cases.
PURPOSE: This letter briefly reviews ideas about the purpose and benefits of peer review and reaches some idealistic conclusions about the process. METHOD: The author uses both literature review and meditation born of long experience. RESULTS: From a cynical perspective, peer review constitutes an adversarial process featuring domination of the weak by the strong and exploitation of authors and reviewers by editors and publishers, resulting in suppression of new ideas, delayed publication of important research, and bad feelings ranging from confusion to fury. More optimistically, peer review can be viewed as a system in which reviewers and editors volunteer thousands of hours to work together with authors, to the end of furthering human knowledge. CONCLUSION: Editors and authors will encounter both peer-review cynics and idealists in their careers, but in the author's experience the second are far more prevalent. Reviewers and editors can help increase the positive benefits of peer review (and improve the culture of science) by viewing the system as one in which they work with authors on behalf of high-quality publications and better science. Authors can contribute by preparing papers carefully prior to submission and by interpreting reviewers' and editors' suggestions in this collegial spirit, however difficult this may be in some cases.