Confidential feedback from many interacting reviewers can help editors make better, quicker decisions, explains.
“As an experimentalist, I decided to test the theory. With Denis, I recruited just over 100 highly qualified referees, mostly suggested by our editorial board. We worked with an IT start-up company to create a closed online forum and sought authors’ permission to have their submissions assessed in this way. Conventional peer reviewers evaluated the same manuscripts in parallel. After an editorial decision was made, authors received reports both from the crowd discussion and from the conventional reviewers.”
(Nature546,9 () doi:10.1038/546009a)