David Adam:

The initial process was much more informal than the one scientists know today, which became formalized in the 1970s, she adds. “Some early referees’ reports have news about their holidays or what else they are doing.”

What do these and other discussions show us about peer review? “When peer review goes well, it is a system that allows authors to improve the way they communicate their results. It is a unique moment of candid exchange between scientists where anonymity can neutralize the discourse,” Ferlier suggests.

“When it goes wrong, it can be a biased or inefficient quality-control that simply slows down the circulation of scientific knowledge.”

Nature rummaged through the archive for insights into the evolution of peer review.

More.