Who holds the keys? The process of peer review as a standard in science is relatively young - its modern form really only appearing in the late 20th century. Essentially, the purpose of peer review is to endow a scientific manuscript with the added values of scientific credibility and scientific integrity, conferred by a consensus of expert peers. It makes sense... right? The idiom "two heads are better than one" seems to suggest that communal decision making leads to better

Traditional Processing of Peer Review The traditional "batch processing" of peer review is inefficient and causes unnecessary lag in the review process. This is how it currently works (broadly speaking): An editor sends out a lengthy word doc or PDF to the reviewers that have agreed to volunteer their review services Each reviewer then creates a textually bulky word document or email containing a summary, some points that need addressing, and a publication or procedural recom