Sir

In the discussion on enhancing peer review, following publication of the controversial human-cloning papers in Science (“Ethics and fraud” Nature 439, 117–118; 2006), I would like to highlight one of the limitations of this process. Last year, I was asked to review a manuscript for a high-impact journal. Although I duly reviewed the paper — before the deadline and after extensive reading and research — I have yet to receive information on the paper's status.

I see three possible scenarios regarding the paper's fate: either it has been accepted or it has been rejected or the authors have been advised to revise it. In the first and second cases, a referee likes to know how an editor made their decision in light of, or in spite of, any objections raised. In the third case, each referee likes to know what comments or recommendations other referees and the editor have made, as well as details of the authors' rebuttal. Obviously each referee is an expert in his or her field, but not necessarily in the other sub-fields relevant to a particular manuscript. Sharing the referees' comments is essential to the learning (and in some cases validation/checking) process. It might also help clarify differences of opinion between referees of the same expertise. I believe discourse among the referees and editor would enrich the quality of reviewing and might prevent scandals such as the human stem-cell line cloning debacle.