Some observations on on-line peer review.
1. Likely going to be the norm due to efficiency, green-ness, reduces cost. Good reasons, get used to it.
2. Reduces discussion. This is variable and may change as people accommodate but there’s less cross-examination. /1

3. Dynamics on the panel are more relaxed, less formal, there are distractions and it can be boring. Reviewers less involved despite reviewing time being similar to F2F.
4. There’s no socialisation AT ALL. Maybe that’s good. I don’t think so. /2

5. F2F panels are a pain to get to and take more time but some reviewers are not able to sequester themselves virtually as effectively as at a F2F meeting. This has pros/cons but some reviewers are disadvantaged at home - don’t assume they’re not. /3

6. There’s tolerance now due to the circumstances but patience may fray unless clear improvements are made. The tech still sucks. People disengage. There is shifting focus. This is not a killer but it needs managing and addressing. /4

7. This will change what and who is funded. Again, that’s not necessarily bad and applicants are quick learners. F2F has many issues too.
8. Direct translation of F2F to virtual is likely not the best way forward. Bring on and test new formats. /5

8. This is all inside baseball. Only scientists and administrators care. But it’s important and an opportunity. Don’t just let it happen. Make sure you play a role in improving how science is adjudicated. We can do better. /6

9. And don’t forgo the social networking of science. Find or invent new ways to interact, to learn outside your sand pit and to help mentor.
10. Lastly, RIP frozen Ottawa Prix Fix menus and Marriott basement rooms with hard boiled egg breakfasts. I’ll miss you a little. /end