In the editorial in August’s Nature Chemical Biology, we share our thoughts on peer review. As you can imagine, the exact timing of an editorial on this topic coincides with the peer review trial and debate going on over at Nature, but the thoughts within the article (as well as many related ideas) are frequently on our minds. My most recent inspiration, however, comes from a trip to a convenience store to buy some toothpaste. The veritable cornucopia of choices (even within a single brand!) made me wonder: if we need 50 different kinds of toothpaste to satisfy what seems a fairly simple concept (of cleaning our teeth), how will we, in the face of an equally overwhelming number of choices, ever come to an agreement on a system as complex and important as peer review? I guess one comforting thing is that until we can figure out a better way to conduct this process, our current method seems to be working pretty well.

Some major questions on our minds:

How do we make sense of all the different options being proffered as changes to the current peer-review system?

How long do new ideas need to be tested before we agree that they are better or worse than the current system?

Is it a reasonable expectation that scientists make time to referee papers on a voluntary basis, as is being explored in the Nature trial?

How would we prevent scientists from encouraging their friends to submit overly positive reviews?

What rewards could/should there be for acting as a referee?

Can/does science exist outside of a political environment, where professors need to worry about the good opinion of their peers?

Obviously, this topic is of great significance to us, and we have many ideas of what the answers to these questions could be. But we already know what we think about it – tell us your thoughts!

Catherine (Assistant Editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

For your commenting pleasure. All links are to abstracts. Posted on September 21, 2006.

Sosa et al., IGF-1 receptor is essential for the establishment of hippocampal neuronal polarity

Williams et al., UNC5A promotes neuronal apoptosis during spinal cord development independent of netrin-1

Göpfert et al., Specification of auditory sensitivity by Drosophila TRP channels

Goel et al., Cross-modal regulation of synaptic AMPA receptors in primary sensory cortices by visual experience

Moriceau & Sullivan, Maternal presence serves as a switch between learning fear and attraction in infancy

Somerville et al., Anterior cingulate cortex responds differentially to expectancy violation and social rejection

Yano et al., BDNF-mediated neurotransmission relies upon a myosin VI motor complex

Wienisch & Klingauf, Vesicular proteins exocytosed and subsequently retrieved by compensatory endocytosis are nonidentical

Shaban et al., Generalization of amygdala LTP and conditioned fear in the absence of presynaptic inhibition

Ferris et al., G(o) signaling is required for Drosophila associative learning

Meredith et al., BK calcium-activated potassium channels regulate circadian behavioral rhythms and pacemaker output

Nader et al., PET imaging of dopamine D2 receptors during chronic cocaine self-administration in monkeys

Morris et al., Midbrain dopamine neurons encode decisions for future action

Gil-da-Costa et al., Species-specific calls activate homologs of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas in the macaque

Ipata et al., LIP responses to a popout stimulus are reduced if it is overtly ignored