In creative pursuits such as art, music or, as in the film quoted above, the preparation of fine cuisine, the critic may be dismissed as superfluous. Whether one prefers Monet or Renoir, Chateau Lafite 1959 or 1962, is mostly subjective. In science, however, criticism by peers is an essential component of the publishing process. Peer review winnows out the chaff and attempts to uphold a standard level of quality in the published literature. Of course, the process is not perfect. Apart from potentiallack of objectivity, one of peer review's growing problems is the inequitable distribution of papers being submitted by many, but reviewed by few. As more journals migrate to electronic publication and submission procedures, this discrepancy is growing.The resulting phenomenon has been called reviewer (and editor) "burn-out" in which journals find that their few, reliable reviewers are unable or unwilling to review all articles for them. In this scenario, journals must either delay publication until alternative, reliable reviewers are found, or use less well known and/or less critical reviewers, thereby risking a potential lowering of quality.
展开▼
