Scientists have traditionally used confidential peer review to assist in the selection of manuscripts for publication. It gives investigators the opportunity to obtain formal critiques from their colleagues and reliably improves papers before publication. On the other hand, because of its often confidential nature, examples exist where referees have abused their privileged position. The internet provides new options for the dissemination of unpublished manuscripts and the collection of critiques. Nature has been actively developing new ‘Web 2.0' functions for its readers, such as Connotea, Dissect Medicine, and Nature Network Boston. From June through October 2006 we are running a Peer Review Trial that enables all in the community to participate. Will the ‘wisdom of the hive' be as valuable as solicited expertise? Some initial analysis of the peer review trial, put into the context of our changing communication habits, will be discussed.