Recently I had the idea of a FIFO review process. That is, when you submit a paper, you must then submit a review of the paper that has been sitting in the sam

Recently I had the idea of a FIFO review process. That is, when you submit a paper, you must then submit a review of the paper that has been sitting in the same queue the longest. Thus every researcher winds up reading as many papers as he/she submits; papers written by groups would presumably jointly submit reviews. This, I think, is the closest one can get to having one's peers in research review your papers without having your specific peers (i.e. colleagues at a university) reviewing your papers (and the likely corruption that it entails). I haven't thought about whether this process would be better or worse than the currently common peer review process, but it is at least interesting in its simplicity. This FIFO process could be chained with the traditional panel-based review process. I am not sure whether that would undercut or improve upon whatever benefits that a FIFO review process would provide.