Some people are skeptical about the use of peer review because it does such a poor job of selecting which papers should be published. However, it is useful in reducing the number of errors, improving the writing, and otherwise improving papers. If you would like evidence on this, see "Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation," Science and Engineering Ethics, 3 (1997), 63-84 â€“ click to view the abstract [in html format] or download the full text of this paper [in PDF format].
Comments on books and articles will be submitted to an editor so that they can be checked for proper English, to ensure that there are no ad hominem arguments, and, in cases where the author is merely expressing an opinion, it should be clearly labeled as such. Those who submit comments are expected to obtain prior peer review before submitting them and to report on the peer review received. This information will be provided to readers who might prefer to read only material that has been peer-reviewed. Authors may be given a chance to respond to the comments before they are posted. The webmaster will decide where to place the commentary and possibly provide comments on the commentaries.
This section will also contain a summary of errors and corrections, either by outside reviewers or by authors for Principles of Forecasting. Finally, access will be provided to published reviews of Principles of Forecasting.