In the Scientific and Technological Journal FITOVIDA the objectives of peer review are lofty and mundane. It is the responsibility of the journals to manage an effective review system. Peer review is designed to select technically valid research of great interest. Referees are expected to identify flaws, suggest improvements, and evaluate novelty. If the manuscript is deemed important enough to be published in a high-profile journal, referees make sure it is internally consistent, thereby uncovering false conclusions or clumsy fraud.

One problem with manuscript selection is the inherent tension between referees and authors. Referees want only the strongest science to be published, but when they "switch" the author, they want quick publication of their novel ideas and approaches. Authors of articles blowing against prevailing winds bear a far greater burden of proof than is normally expected in publishing their challenge to the current paradigm. Going too far in one direction or another leads to complaints that peer review is not strict enough or is stifling the latest research. It's the job of publishers to try to avoid both extremes.

Journal editors don't expect peer review to uncover deliberate and cleverly hidden hoaxes. A peer reviewer can only assess what the authors decided to include in the manuscript. This contrasts with the expectation in the popular press that peer review is a process by which fraudulent data is detected before it is published (although that sometimes happens).

At the Scientific and Technological Journal FITOVIDA we are continuously impressed with the positive impact of peer review in almost all the articles we publish. Even articles that are misunderstood by reviewers are often rewritten and improved before being resubmitted. Mistakes do happen, but peer review, through conscientious effort on the part of referees, helps protect the literature, promote good science, and select the best. Until a truly viable alternative is provided, we would not do otherwise.