Publication Abstract

Peer review of scientific research is generally believed to be a valuable adjunct that enhances the value of science. However, whether one seeks peer review of literature or of scientific output itself, it has been likened to somewhat of a lottery. From a literature (i.e. scientific paper) perspective, the stance taken by an editor is perhaps more crucial than that of the reviewers, at least in ensuring fairness and independence. However, at the interface between science and management, it has become increasingly obvious that decision-makers rely more and more upon rigorous peer-review of their science-based advisory documents and also expect the underpinning science itself to have been subjected to rigorous peer review. In this context, if conducted openly and set against prior stipulated and agreed terms of reference, peer review certainly adds value to the process of advice provision, and makes it difficult for decision-makers to ignore well-founded recommendations. However, other (non-natural science) inputs do still require politically expedient decisions to be taken, sometimes to the frustration of the authors of the natural scientific advice. Based on experience of reviews in several parts of the world, contentious issues in the peer-review process that arise include: the competence of the peer-reviewer(s); their independence; the ability of a review chair to steer proceedings amicably and without interference by those commissioning the review; the means whereby reviewers are invited; the cost of the review and whether payment jeopardizes its independence; personnel continuity from one review of a resource or topic to the next; and the international respect for the experts conducting the review process. These and other issues are addressed while forcefully advocating the continuation of a rigorous process of peer review.