Who will review the reviewers? Anonymity and selection processes for peer‐reviewers require evaluation

Who will review the reviewers?Anonymity and selection processes for peer-reviewers require evaluation Peer review has long been part of the scientific process. 1 However, this process is not without flaws. 2The accountability of grant and article peer-reviewers is often minimal, due to the provision of anonymity.Similarly, the processes underpinning the selection of peer-reviewers can be opaque.These anonymous peer-review processes can also lend themselves to perverse incentive structures.Given the importance of transparency in science, should not all individuals involved in the scientific process, including both authors and reviewers, be selected in a transparent and identifiable manner?The selection processes for article and grant reviewers can vary.A common approach involves a recommendation process.There is infrequently a clear quantitative meritocratic method for selecting peerreviewers.Additionally, at times, it may be difficult to recruit peer-reviewers.These circumstances create the potential for ineffective peer-review processes.As the gatekeepers to the requisites for academic advancement, including publications and grant funding, when peer-reviewers are inadequately qualified or knowledgeable about a given domain, this situation could have adverse effects on a field. 2 Again, data are limited, but it would seem intuitive that these problems may be more likely in new and rapidly developing fields with which more senior researchers may be less familiar.Grant funding is typically necessary for a sustainable academic career.Therefore, in a real-world manner, it could be seen that reviewers on grant selection panels are able to regulate their own industry.Self-regulating industries have multiple potential downsides, including the promotion of self-interest above the interests of the general public. 3In a scientific domain, this structure could mean that prevailing ideas and theories, or even dogmas, are perpetuated due to the echo chamber effect