Review Boards for Scientific Publishing

Abstract

While the spread of open access publishing for technical and scientific papers has improved some long-standing problems in the scientific publishing pipeline, it has worsened others. Meanwhile, peer review and the scientific publication system in general have come under increasingly intense criticism, provoking many reform ideas. Despite the strident language of reformists and the widespread opinion that the situation is worsening, reform ideas have generally received a lukewarm response among researchers. I argue that this complacency is a reaction to reforms that ignore the priorities of readers and how readers' needs have shaped the publishing world today. I outline a path for improving the peer-review system through the use of permanent review boards—to accommodate the needs of readers, reviewers, and authors alike—and show how to get from where we are now to where we should be.