Sir

Jean-Patrick Connerade in Correspondence (“Scandals stem from low priority of peer review” Nature 427, 196; 2004) offers an excellent perspective on the current status of the peer-review system.

Although I agree with his main argument that refereeing needs further recognition, I disagree with the suggestion that recent cases of misconduct, plagiarism and other problems arise from the low priority of peer review.

Most referees are indeed very busy, but there are good and competent scientists who still provide a critical, detailed and timely analysis. Last-minute and ill-conceived reports are unjustified, because there is no obligation to act as a referee. In their letters to reviewers, editors always point out that the potential referee should decline if they are unable to reply in a timely fashion.

It's true that peer review is time-consuming, but information provided by editorial offices about individual reviewers could become an additional and useful measure of a scientist's professional qualifications.

Some journals already do this. For example, the Royal Society of Chemistry has for many years provided annual confidential reports to its referees that list the papers refereed for each journal, the referee's recommendation in every case, and the final outcome. Not only does this provide useful feedback for the reviewers, it can help to normalize reviewing standards and even improve the quality and speed of assessments. The Royal Society of Chemistry is currently updating its system so that reviewers will be able to access this confidential information online.

As more and more journals develop electronic systems of publication and record-keeping, this sort of information should be easy for them to provide.