In the editorial of issue 6 of ACS Chemical Biology, Evelyn Jabri, Executive Editor of ACS Chemical Biology discusses the ongoing evolution of the peer review process and the new experiments in open peer review. Give us your thoughts on the ACS CB peer review process and open peer review. Should ACS CB modify its peer review process? If so, how?

:I think we need to completely redesign the system - by considering how we would set up peer review now, rather than "grandfathering in" a system from (technologically) ancient times. The[http://pubs.acs.org/journals/acbcct/publishing/reviewer.html (current system here) seems very traditional - is it not? Obviously we need to use the lessons learned from the old system. But we should try to set up something as close to ideal as possible, something that is fully based on modern technology instead of using technology as an add-on to enhance the existing system. A manuscript should be seen as a dynamic node on a multidimensional network of information rather than as a static, disconnected file.

:I would suggest a process something along these lines:

• A manuscript is submitted electronically by the author
  
• The original manuscript is either accepted for review or rejected by the journal. If accepted, this draft version is posted online on a wiki as a  (stable version).
  
• Users are able to see both the original submitted draft and the current version, with one click between them.
  
• The journal contacts reviewers in the traditional way, and these review the original manuscript. I would propose making these comments public, but that is something that could be debated.
  
• A comments page attached to the article could provide feedback from ACS members (perhaps also RSC etc by arrangement) to the author, reviewers and journal editors on the quality of the work, prior work, etc.
  
• Meanwhile, the manuscript is edited to meet house style and publication standard by the journal editors, with changes appearing immediately. Internal and external links are also added to connect up the article to the existing literature both inside and outside the ACS wiki.
  
• Once the changes suggested by official reviewers have been addressed, and the other outside comments have been considered, the journal could decide whether or not to approve or reject the article or thesis. Once any remaining in-house editing is complete, the approved version is posted, and made available to the world.