Author: Olivier Gires
Position: PhD, Group head
Institution: Head and Neck Research
E-mail: olivier.gires@med.uni-muenchen.de
Submitted Date: April 30, 2007
Published Date: May 1, 2007
This comment was originally posted as a “Reader Response” on the publication date indicated above. All Reader Responses are now available as comments.

What if reviewers were mentioned on a paper at publication? And, even more important, what if reviewers were mentioned along with rebuttals. Wouldn´t it bring about the type of transparency that is desperatelly needed in the field? Anonymity allows for many things, unfortunately, and every scientist believes they have experienced this once in a while. A combination of such transparency and some type of incentive may help to generate acceptable review processes. Acceptable for authors as well!

Yet, having said that, what could be the incentive? Money? I don´t think so as reviewing must be part of the job and, as such, the manuscripts should be of intrinsic interest to the scientist asked to review them. Blocking papers from slackers, as they were called in the letter to PLoS Biology, may be unethical too. Free slots in the journal, which seems to exist for e.g. for PNAS members, doesn´t seem the right option either.

So I am left with the notion of knowledge and a possible benefit to be retrieved from it: it is a researcher's prime intention to increase their knowledge of their field of interest - through their own work as well as from results of colleagues. Imagine what would happen if manuscripts were not sent to "big-shots" in the field but rather to assumed "small-shots" (given they are experts too). Knowledge would be shared far better, "big-shots" may have to think about their reviewing policies and the entire story of publications may be put back in the right perspective, i.e providing knowledge. It would likewise provide an opportunity to bust a certain type of monopoly of certain reviewers and high-ranking journals. So my proposal: more diversity and audacity in the choice of reviewers.