Through all the discussion in recent years about the most appropriate business models for disseminating scientific information (reader pays, authors pays, wealthy benefactor pays, and so on), at least one of science publishing’s sacred cows has been left largely undisturbed. Peer review is much more central to scientific communication than any particular economic model. That might mean it’s safer from disruption by the transformative effects of the web — or might mean that it represents an even more profound revolution yet to take place. Frankly, I don’t know.

Which is why I’m so pleased that Nature has just launched an online debate on the topic of peer review. The first batch of contributions covers a range of perspectives and opinions (and you can post your own comments here). Readers of this blog might be most interested in the piece from Herbert Van de Sompel, who, with his colleagues at LANL, is doing some fascinating work on unbundling the process of scientific communication and automating the process of peer review.

Simultaneously, and just as importantly, Nature is conducting a peer review trial of its own. From today, submitters to the journal are being offered the option of having their manuscripts posted on a preprint server to solicit public comments. At the same time, their work will go through the usual anonymous peer review process, and both sets of comments will be considered by the editors in making their decisions.

At the end of the trial, which will last for about three months, Nature editorial staff will assess the overall value of comments from self-selected public contributors versus those from invited anonymous reviewers. At the risk of over-simplifying a bit, I think this could turn out to be an interesting test of Wisdom of Crowds theory versus Madness of Crowds theory. It will also be fascinating to see what the take-up is among submitters, not least because it constitutes something of a test of openness among scientists. I expect the proportion to vary greatly by discipline, but let’s see.

It all begins here.

Through all the discussion in recent years about the most appropriate business models for disseminating scientific information (reader pays, authors pays, wealthy benefactor pays, and so on), at least one of science publishing’s sacred cows has been left largely undisturbed. Peer review is much more central to scientific communication than any particular economic model. That might mean it’s safer from disruption by the transformative effects of the web — or might mean that it represents an even more profound revolution yet to take place. Frankly, I don’t know.

Which is why I’m so pleased that Nature has just launched an online debate on the topic of peer review. The first batch of contributions covers a range of perspectives and opinions (and you can post your own comments here). Readers of this blog might be most interested in the piece from Herbert Van de Sompel, who, with his colleagues at LANL, is doing some fascinating work on unbundling the process of scientific communication and automating the process of peer review.

Simultaneously, and just as importantly, Nature is conducting a peer review trial of its own. From today, submitters to the journal are being offered the option of having their manuscripts posted on a preprint server to solicit public comments. At the same time, their work will go through the usual anonymous peer review process, and both sets of comments will be considered by the editors in making their decisions.

At the end of the trial, which will last for about three months, Nature editorial staff will assess the overall value of comments from self-selected public contributors versus those from invited anonymous reviewers. At the risk of over-simplifying a bit, I think this could turn out to be an interesting test of Wisdom of Crowds theory versus Madness of Crowds theory. It will also be fascinating to see what the take-up is among submitters, not least because it constitutes something of a test of openness among scientists. I expect the proportion to vary greatly by discipline, but let’s see.

It all begins here.