Peer review has evolved from the earliest attempts by the church to evaluate scholarly works the creation of academic peer review and finally to the current state of the process. As new technology provides authors with a direct, unsupervised route to publication, the peer review situation is nearing a tipping point, beyond which the nature of academic research will be profoundly altered. In Do We Still Need Peer Review? An Argument for Change, Thomas H. P. Gould describe the rise of technology and the empowerment of the individual, which have combined to create changes in the world of scholarly publishing. Gould contends that without a lucid, thought-out new approach, the current system of peer review is in jeopardy, and an immediate effort is required by scholars to institute reform, otherwise peer review might cease to exist. After a thorough discussion of the foundations of peer review, Gould traces its evolution from an effort to control thought by secular and ecclesiastical rulers to use in universities where peer review became detached from dogma and dictatorship. Gould then considers three alternatives to peer review: individuals freely publishing their work (perhaps through a site hosted by an academic institution), corporate sponsorship, or publication through an academic commons overseen by established committees.

Weighing the pros and cons of each of these options, Do We Still Need Peer Review? offers an intriguing evaluation of the process and brings into focus a dilemma that needs to be addressed by the academic community. Book jacket.