The History and Practice of Peer Review

The widespread use of peer review, which is such an integral part of publishing in modern scientific journals, is actually a rather recent addition to science. When the Journal des Scavans, the first publication that we would recognize as a scientific journal, was published in 1665, it was prefaced with the following disclaimer: “we aim to report the ideas of others without guaranteeing them” (Rennie 1999). The reason for that disclaimer was that, short of personal knowledge, there was no practical way for an editor to evaluate the veracity of the contributions being offered to the journal. It is a laborious and difficult method, involving heavy daily correspondence and constant vigilance to guard against personal eccentricity or prejudice, or—that bugbear of journalism—unjustifiable censure. Peer review did not become standard practice for many scientific journals until after World War II (WW II). For example, the British medical journal The Lancet, which began publication in 1823, did not adopt peer review until 1976. Several factors drove the adoption of peer review. One was the increasing complexity of science and the realization that external peer review greatly expands the expertise available to the editor. Another factor was the greatly increased amount of funding that became available to support science in the wake of WW II. With the explosion of scientific inquiry, submissions to scientific journals increased to the point where there wasn't enough space to accommodate them all. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, peer review morphed into a screening procedure for identifying, by reviewer consensus, the most suitable contributions. The peer review system presently used by Groundwater is very much the product of this recent and not-so-recent history. Each submitted manuscript is read by the editor-in-chief to determine if the subject matter is suitable for the scope of the journal. Those judged suitable are distributed to an associate editor and two peer reviewers, all of whom, like the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731, are selected because they are “most versed in these matters.” Reviewers are asked to comment on the overall interest of the subject matter, the appropriateness of the methods that were employed, the veracity and significance of the results, and the clarity of presentation. Reviewers are also asked to offer opinions concerning suitability for publication and to provide comments for improving the overall presentation. The peer review system developed haphazardly over a long period of time, and its shortcomings and failings are no particular secret (Horrobin 1990; Benos et al. 2007). But science requires an atmosphere of probing, questioning skepticism which, in spite of its imperfections, peer review provides. Editor's Note: Opinions expressed in the editorial column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Ground Water Association or the U.S. Geological Survey.