Had Marc Hauser and Ernst Fehr submitted their paper on reform of the reviewing process to a peer-reviewed journal ("Make all see that deadline matters", Opinion, July 6), it would probably have been rejected for being fundamentally flawed. Their proposal to speed things up uses only the stick.
Why should anyone agree to review if they risk punitive sanctions for being late (however valid the reason)? This proposed reform will merely hasten the perceived demise of peer review.
Perhaps the authors could usefully have considered the carrot instead. Here, the assiduous reviewer who spots the fundamental flaw and recommends major revision becomes a joint author for their valuable intellectual input.