'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring quality control of scientific manuscripts published in any journal. The traditional double blind peer review, although a time-tested method, has come under increasing criticism in the face of emerging trends in the review process with the primary concern being the delays in completion of the review process. Other issues are the inability to detect errors/fraud, lack of transparency, lack of reliability, potential for bias, potential for unethical practices, lack of objectivity, inconsistencies amongst reviewers, lack of recognition and motivation of reviewers. Alternative options to classical peer review being propagated are: open review, immediate self-publication using preprint servers, nonselective review focusing primarily on the scientific content, and post-publication review. These alternative review processes, however, may suffer from the inability to validate quality control. In addition, anecdotal instances of peer review frauds are being reported more often than earlier. Suggested means to ensure quality of peer review process includes:(a) each journal to have its own database of reviewers, (b) verification of email IDs of reviewers provided by authors along with details of their institutions, (c) ensure credibility of reviewers before requesting for review, (d) check for plagiarism at the editorial level, (e) editors to distinguish between a good review from a possible biased/bad review, and (f) give recognition for reviewers once in a year. To conclude, quickness of review and publication should not dictate the scientific publication process at the cost of quality of contents.