3040 scientists filled out the survey, me among them. I am very happy to see the vast majority shares my general opinion on the importance of the peer review process:
"The overwhelming majority (93%) disagree that peer review is unnecessary. The large majority (85%) agreed that peer review greatly helps scientific communication [...]
Researchers overwhelmingly (90%) said the main area of effectiveness of peer review was in improving the quality of the published paper. In their own experience as authors, 89% said that peer review had improved their last published paper, both in terms of the language or presentation but also in terms of correcting scientific errors."
But there is also a desire for improvement:
"While the majority (64%) of academics declared themselves satisfied with the current system of peer review used by journals (and just 12% dissatisfied), they were divided on whether the current system is the best that can be achieved, with 36% disagreeing and 32% agreeing. There was a very similar division on whether peer review needs a complete overhaul. There was evidence that peer review is too slow (38% were dissatisfied with peer review times) and that reviewers are overloaded."
Most people also shared my opinion about double blind review review that I regard `in principle' a good idea just that it is doubtful whether it would work in practice, as I also pointed out in the earlier post Peer Review II:
"[W]hen asked which was their most preferred option, there was a preference for double-blind review, with 56% selecting this, followed by 25% for single-blind, 13% for open and 5% for post-publication review. Open peer review was an active discouragement for many reviewers, with 47% saying that disclosing their name to the author would make them less likely to review.
Double-blind review was seen as the most effective. Double-blind review had the most respondents (71%) who perceived it to be effective, followed (in declining order) by single-blind (52%), post-publication (37%) and open peer review (26%) [...]
Many respondents, including some of those supporting double-blind review, did however point out that there were great difficulties in operating it in practice because it was frequently too easy to identify authors from their references, type of work or other internal clues."
You can download the full suvey results here (PDF ~1.4 MB), or the summary here (PDF ~ 1.6 MB).
Thanks to Stefan for the pointer!