Assistant professors give the toughest reviews and specialists offerthe most constructive criticism, according to a study of the integrity of reviews in scientific publishing by UC Davis researchers. The retrospective analysis of 134 reviews for papers submitted to a Scandinavian journal of plant physiology suggests that the peer-review system works well in a non-medical journal of academic biological research, conclude plant biology professor Terence Murphy and statistics professor Jessica Utts. Fundamental to the process of science and the careers of scientists, peer review has come under increasing scrutiny because of allegations of bias and other problems, many of which have surfaced in studies of medical research. "These results support the value of this review system in maintaining the quality of papers in this journal and in encouraging authors," Murphy says. Murphy is the North American editor of Physiologia Plantarum, an international journal publishing a wide range of articles on plant physiology. The researchers are now looking into the effect of masking the identity of the author and institution from the reviewer.