Stop the presses!
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports, stunningly, that “an overwhelming majority [of academic scientists] believe peer review in journals is necessary.”
I would have expected to read this at The Onion, not at The Chronicle.
The survey report, paid for by the Publishing Research Consortium, “found that the average peer review takes 80 days, that the average number of manuscripts each reviewer reads yearly is 8, and that each reviewer tends to spend 5 hours on a manuscript over the course of 3-4 weeks.” Which explains a lot …
Update: Perhaps these reviewers should read the book reviewed in JAMA this week, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice.
Update: The Lancet comments both on the Publishing Research Consortium survey noted above and the egregious behavior of the NEJM reviewer of the meta-analysis of rosiglitazone’s cardiovascular risks (see comment below).