In Alpha Centauri Journal of Scientific and Technological Research the goals 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-visibility journal, the referees ensure that it is internally consistent, thus uncovering false conclusions or clumsy fraud.

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

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

We are continually impressed with the positive impact of peer review on almost every article we publish. Even articles misinterpreted by reviewers are often rewritten and improved before resubmitting. Mistakes are made, but peer review, through a conscientious effort on the part of the referees, helps to protect the literature, promote good science, and select the best. Until a truly viable alternative is provided, we would not do it any other way.