Confidentiality, Peer Review, and the Submission Case Database

In the current setup of science publishing, authors have few opportunities to effectively account for improper treatment of their work in journals, and due to its confidential nature, peer review is inherently misusable for assaults. The author presents some arguments and suggestions about reorganizing journal-level peer review with regard to improving quality and minimizing harm to authors. Specifically, the author argues about the following: a) blinding/disclosure models do not enhance review integrity significantly and do not deal effectively, among others, with conflict issues; b) journals should focus on examining their internal involvement, especially reviewers through co-reviewers; c) reviewers should be— adequately—paid; d) a global interface of evaluation is needed where people working with/for a journal can make their experiences known in a safe and constructive way. Finally, the author explains relations and possible applications of this proposed setup for academic accountability to activities such as teaching, hiring, and the like.