The correspondent can be the judge

Editor—Sneyd¹ has nicely analysed the interactions between author and reviewer, editor, and invited editorial writer that are needed to improve the quality and rigour of science. Unfortunately, undertaking academic work other than primary research does not currently facilitate academic advancement. One simple step would be to include review activity in measures of academic performance, but the danger of using a confidential system for scoring academic output would be problematic. The anonymous carefully crafted review could become a slapdash effort, and no-one would know: indeed, as an editor for many years I was too often faced with such material. I often longed for a balanced review!

Perhaps a simpler step would be to encourage more correspondence related to published papers. At the moment, this activity seems to be in decline. My response when I read a paper with which I find fault is to think ‘life is too short’, particularly because I know the authors of the published paper always get a right to a final reply. Such replies commonly deny fault, and are frequently evasive or deliberately obtuse. The impact of critical letters would be far greater if the final word rested with the critic, who would be allowed to respond to any weakness in a response from the authors. Indeed, if such a completed ‘critical correspondence cycle’ were accorded some small degree of recognition, we may discover the fresh blood that Sneyd¹ seeks. This could also enhance the care that authors apply when submitting their work, and perhaps even the care with which their work is reviewed (even if anonymous, reviewers will realise that there is a potentially legitimate weakness in the paper they have considered).

Declaration of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.