Despite the implication of the title, Thomas Gould states in the preface that indeed he “values peer review” (xi). He argues that it is no longer enough for those in academia to complain that the current peer review system is broken without offering suggestions for change. Instead, the time has come to examine from where we have come and to make a plan for meaningful change.

Many may understand the peer review process, but Gould takes the opportunity to outline the basic steps, from the research process through editorial decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on reviewer evaluation. In this opening chapter, Gould defines “peer,” gives a brief history of peer review, offers pros and cons of the peer review process, and briefly discusses why maintaining the status quo is not a viable option.

The concept of peer review has been around longer than many people would imagine. Gould’s overview of the history of peer review begins well before the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press and extends into the present. Before the invention of the printing press, the expensive and labor-intensive process of hand copying texts meant that very few of the small number of literate individuals had access to these works. The review process, however, was still occurring. By extending the definition of “peer” to “one’s betters” (13), Gould demonstrates the role early kings and church leaders had in reviewing ideas. Such “postreview,” occurring after a work was made public (24), was used to “protect” people from dangerous ideas or discourage freethinkers.

The next chapter covers the period 1600–1950, at which time a review process began to more firmly develop in academia. Gould writes that “what arose in the seventeenth century was a new form of publishing that focused on smaller tomes, a multitude of authors, and a very real need for some system of editorship” (45), i.e., the academic journal and editor. Academia was changing as well. Ideas were easier to share, so more people were exposed to them. During this time, the number of universities and teachers increased. This chapter concludes with a discussion of peer review as it existed in the 1950s. By this time, peer review had transitioned from a process of postreview to a process of prior restraint in which ideas could be suppressed before they were published.

In chapter 4, Gould introduces readers to the anonymous, double-blind peer review process. He offers examples of the flaws of a process in which “what was once good is now not so good” (57). Utilizing previous research on the pitfalls of the anonymous, double-blind peer review process, Gould explores gender bias; a perceived “caste” system of published research; how writing style may affect the acceptance of an article; and cases in which reviewers or editors purposely stall a paper because it might be in competition with their own publishing efforts. Despite this, Gould still believes the review process is a viable method for determining what research is appropriate to publish. In chapter 5 he discusses how the Internet, social media tools, and online publishing affect perceptions of what is a worthy medium for publication. Digital and open access (OA) publishing are common on many campuses, and it is fitting that he includes a discussion of these as part of an examination of the relevancy of peer review.