NPR published an article this week which questions the datedness of the peer-review process in scientific (especially biology based) journals. The authors call into question why such renowned journals focus so heavily on the review of just a few researchers, especially when bias can be introduced so easily into the process. The article proposes a pre-publication forum where researchers can receive comments and critiques from the public (likely scientific) which may improve validity and consensus before publication. As a former laboratory researcher I have seen first-hand some of the bias and intrigue which can go into publishing, especially publications which challenge the accepted norm in the field. While the amazon process would have issues dealing with trolls, fake reviews, and other items which Amazon is competing with, it would likely make the entire process more open and transparent. What are your thoughts or suggestions?
Should professional journals be more like Amazon?
