Sir

I follow with interest the ongoing correspondence about peer review (Nature 427, 196 & 428, 255; 2004) and agree with the importance of giving recognition to quality reviewers. One option that has not had much attention is making the peer-review process public, so that the whole scientific community can benefit.

For example, Neurosurgery will print a short comment by reviewers highlighting why they felt that the paper deserved publication and what makes it new. One way to extend this idea would be to make each review, and the authors' responses to the reviews for every article, available to all readers. This documentation could be posted as supplementary material on the Internet. Reviewers would have the option of remaining anonymous if they wish.

The educational nature of this information would be invaluable for many reasons. To cite a few: young researchers could learn how to publish outstanding papers and address criticisms; readers could be made aware of the limitations of certain approaches; and we would have a historical record of how peer review improves research findings.

Another practice, which I have found quite useful when reviewing for Neoplasia, is online dialogue between reviewers and authors. Reviewers' comments are posted anonymously online and authors can respond and clarify. The reviewer can help authors improve their studies by explaining why certain experiments were weak. The authors can clarify to the reviewer some aspects that may have been misunderstood in the review, possibly influencing the editorial decision.

This dialogue is unlimited and not mediated by an editor. At the moment it happens in a restricted area of the website, but it could be posted online with the accepted article. Once again, it would be the reviewer's decision whether or not to reveal their identity and assume responsibility for their review.