SIR - Peer review (Letters, December 20) is a filter that prevents the publication of research containing errors or lacking evidence. It does so irrespective of the authority or academic standing of the authors. What would those who distrust it propose as an alternative?

Without peer review, science would descend into anarchy. The entire scientific endeavour would be reduced to the equivalent of an unmoderated blog, on which anyone could publish anything without the inconvenient burdens of evidence and critical scrutiny.

Dr Paul Williams
Royal Society Research Fellow
University of Reading, Reading