 There has been a lot of discussion about alternatives to the traditional peer review process and we've seen publishers come up with new models such as collaborative peer review and post publication peer review. We are also seeing new initiatives like pre peer review evaluation and for belongs. What are going to you is an ideal peer review system and what will be the challenges for say journals or societies to get more closer to an ideal peer review system? Yeah, I wouldn't say that the traditional form of peer review is dead or dying. I think it could do with some reform but I think as well just to redress some of the balance around peer review sometimes it's one or two dead apples that make the whole thing look bad and actually there are a lot of good apples in if I can put it like that in traditional peer review. The vast majority of peer review I think works well and there's I think still a lot to be said for the traditional form of peer review, prepublication review. If there are new models of peer review it's probably because we've now got the opportunities for exploring those particularly with the web that we didn't used to have so with new opportunities come new opportunities for developing new technologies and exploring other ways of doing it it just wasn't very practically possible to have post publication open peer review for example until fairly recently. So I think traditional peer review, prepublication, closed has still got a lot of mileage. I think as well some of the other interesting things that emerging in peer review at the moment are about how we recognize peer review as an activity. So there's no question that peer review is really demanding on researchers time and researchers can spend a lot of time doing peer review which largely goes unrecognized and that can make people angry or it can make people frustrated. So I think a really key thing for the future for peer review is about how we recognize the efforts of peer reviewers and that could be in all sorts of forms it could be in giving them tangible rewards it could be their employers or institutions, funders recognizing peer review as a valid research activity and there's a whole spectrum of possibilities there. Yeah some very interesting points actually one is that the advancements in the digital age actually have made a lot of advancements in peer review possible. Second is focusing on reviewers like if you can use the peer reviewers in a more efficient way that's also the key to fixing a lot of problems in the peer review system.