Reducing the peer-reviewer's burden

Published at Peer-To-Peer, a nature.com blog, on May 10th, 2010, by Maxine Clarke:

"Nature Chemical Biology ( 6, 307; 2010) asks in its May Editorial: what can be done to reduce the burden on scientific referees while ensuring the continuity and quality of peer review?"

That's a good question, but why limit ourselves to "thinking inside th box"? Is peer review the only quality assurance possible in scholarship?

"Researchers profit from the peer review process in their roles as authors, where it improves their published papers. They also benefit as referees by getting a broad view of leading studies in their field and by enhancing the rigor of their discipline's published literature."

This is very altruistic on their behalf. It seems to me that reviewing papers would be an unwanted burden to most scientists.

"As technological advances have equipped scientists with new tools to probe scientific questions in unprecedented ways, the pace of research has expanded significantly, particularly in interdisciplinary areas. This more competitive landscape has placed increasing pressure on scientists to publish their research in leading journals. More manuscripts are being written and a higher burden for each manuscript to include more and better data puts corresponding pressure on the peer review system. Unfortunately, this is happening in an environment where the 'to do' lists of scientists are already becoming unmanageable."

I think the key term here is competitive. This competition benefits science by having scientists strive to reach high quality publications. Can't this competition be disconnected from the subjective assessments of any one reviewe? For instance, tying the tendencies of a scientific community as a whole to any one paper being deemed fit for publications - A sort of group peer review?

"Despite everyone's best efforts, the slowest step in the publication process remains the evaluation of manuscripts by anonymous experts. All journals, including Nature Chemical Biology, strive to balance the desires of authors for expeditious review with our need for the high quality referee feedback necessary for making informed editorial decisions. Given these competing demands, the scientific community needs to find ways to reduce the burden of peer review, while making sure that it fulfills its central role in the advancement of science."

A solution for that is brevity. By keeping articles SHORT we can shorten the time needed for their review and hence, publication.

"We urge principal investigators to work with their colleagues and institutions to establish formal peer review training in their curricula, focusing on the intellectual aspects of review, such as how to assess the aims and technical merit of scientific studies. However, they also need to include training on the practical matters of how to express constructive criticism clearly in writing and should examine the professional and ethical dimensions of peer review. Such approaches will help young scientists develop peer reviewing skills, which will also shape students' views of how to design and evaluate their own scientific work."

Very good idea. However, we need a system that will allow all of these scientists to implement their learnt review skills, rather than allowing just a select few to express their opinion for any given paper.