Peer Review is an unnerving process, but it does not have to be. As Camille’s post points out, you can turn a very intimidating and scary process into a learning experience for all involved by following some very simple guidelines. In the Sokal affair the editors were the soul judges of whether or not something was printed. In all honesty their intentions sound good, but in practice, when trying to meet publication deadlines etc, it is no wonder that Sokal felt that the hoax was necessary to expose poor editorial practice. I think that this type of hoax, although arguably in poor taste, is necessary as we are trying to move into an era of open publishing and shared academic research. Open Data is a very noble goal, but how are we able to achieve it without some checks and balances? It is not that Peer Review is going to delay or destroy the ability of open publishers, but there needs to be a better way of ensuring that the mass of academic articles being submitted to online journals maintain a certain standard of integrity.