We are trying to establish a new format to assess, how selection by peer review processes work. Looking at our own referee reports we sometimes get doubts if this is really the best procedure. On the other hand, we don’t have any proposal at hand, how this could be done better. We would like to publish all kinds of referee reports from different fields
But we need your help! Send us your most interesting and spectacular referee reports!
Further reading on the peer review process:
1. Bornmann, L. & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS ONE 5(10), e13345.
2. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199-245.
I think, open peer review is a good way to get the review quality improved.
Not only, that you are forced to submit a better prepared paper (to not get ashamed in public), also the referees won’t be able to get too personal or too superficial!
Why does junq not go this way?