> Currently we have peer review done by a couple of people who get the paper and maybe they spend a couple of hours on it. Usually they cannot analyze the data

> Currently we have peer review done by a couple of people who get the paper and maybe they spend a couple of hours on it. Usually they cannot analyze the data because the data are not available – well, even if they were, they would not have time to do that. We need to find ways to improve the peer review process and think about new ways of peer review. The whole article is worth reading, but this stood out to me. I've never felt satisfied with the review process, even when it's been very friendly toward a paper. I think it's the speed of the process: wait a couple months for reviews, send a response a few weeks / months later. In contrast, twitter seems like a nice place to get things churning. I realize these are two different processes, and a person could throw a paper that's in review into the twittersphere. I guess I'm interested in seeing where the process goes (and what events precipitate a change to the traditional review structure).