Conta Natura

Sir:
Although peer review seems the best system for quality control of scientific publications and grant proposals ("Three cheers for peers" Nature 439, 118; 2006), we might try to improve it. Market forces are known to optimize complex systems where multiple players have conflicting interests. Economic principles and internet technology could be applied to a peer-review system in the following way. First, a central digital repository receives a paper for a fee 'x'. Potential referees then bid to review the paper, and, if approved by the author, receive a fee 'y

Referees who can recommend an appropriate journal for the paper and provide the required reference are given due credit and might eventually raise their fee. Authors wanting additional improvements to their work might also pay a higher fee.

Soon, an active exchange could take off where referees quote their position in the peer-market as eagerly as authors quote their citation impact. This system could diminish the workload of referees, by reducing the need to review the same paper for different journals. Eventually this system might be run as an independent peer-review exchange for a profit.