From Alexander Berezin, Mcmaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
In her reply to our criticism of anonymous peer review (APR), Phyllis Starkey (Forum, 22 April) down-plays the central point: lack of convincing (not anecdotal) evidence that APR does indeed improve the quality of science. The bulk of historical data overwhelmingly supports the opposite case (see for example, “The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation” by D. F. Horrobin, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 263, p 1438).
This and many other reputable studies disprove the commonly held myth that the prime function of APR is that of a “quality control valve”, but suggest that its main underlying function is a validation of the “belonging to a club”. Furthermore, proliferation of APR is the prime cause of the publish-or-perish hysteria in modern science which, in turn, leads to an enormous overproduction of routine data; over half of all science literature is never cited after the publication.
Paradoxically, as some APR critics have pointed out, a dismantling of the APR system will lead to a reduction, not an increase, of the information pollution in science. In the absence of APR-driven publish-or-perish pressure and rat-race funding “competition” (which fails to deliver anyway), scientists will generally prefer to publish fewer but more substantial and well thought through papers.
