I’m a big fan of efficiency and transparency. We are planning on doing a roundtable journal club (no ppt, everyone holds the paper in their hands – or tablet - and takes turns presenting figures) followed by a DSP review. In doing so, this will enable me to contribute to changing peer review, keep current on new discoveries, AND help my trainees learn the review process. Publishing has become a real problem – the bar keeps getting higher and higher. While I don’t expect everything to be solved by DSP – I appreciate the opportunity to be part of the change. If no one tries anything, how will things ever change? The anonymity of classical peer review can be helpful in asking key questions to advance the science without fear of retaliation – especially when there is a power imbalance. However, it can be harmful when reviewers ask for impossible experiments or those that don’t actually help clarify the main message or ‘truth’. I hope that through DSP we can get back to constructive, supportive critiques to help advance swift – while rigorous- scientific discovery for all.