[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re: Publishing on the WEB, DinoStore After Thanksgiving Sale
>>Dissatisfaction in the review system appears to have been
>>growing for quite some time. Why has there been no serious attempt to
>>revise it ....
Let me get this straight; you are asking for a review of the review system?
Are you for or against peer review?
>Now, wait just a minute here. Although some people have a problem with the
>peer review system, it can be very helpful and productive. I and coauthors
>(and I'm sure many of the rest of you professionals out there) have benifited
>greatly from comments through peer review, making out papers better. No
>one (except maybe Dinogeorge :-) ) has memorized the whole of the literature
>on any subject, and many of us have picked up things here and there outside
>the field of the paper which proves useful in a revision. So, there is
>still much to recommend about peer review.
Exactly. Peer review may not be perfect (perhaps it is time for a review of
review reviews) but it is a system that allows some quality control and,
when it functions properly, it does provide benefits far in excess of the
inconvienience of slowing up things for a bit.
So why are some elements out there against peer review of a proposed web
publishing site. It can not be one of time. Theoretically an article
submitted to a web site for publication could be reviewed and published
with in a few days and, at most, a week. This is certainly a good deal
better than printed journals that have between 3 months and 3 years turn
around. So time can not be a serious objection to peer review on the web.
I can only deduce that, those who are objecting to peer review on the web
are doing so because they do not wish to have papers held up to peer
scrutiny prior to publication. Their motive for this may be questionable.
But I don't wish to make this an accusation, but rather a question; why not
I should add that the GPS arguement that clever scientists know what to
believe is a rediculous argument (no offence Greg, but, as an arguement, it
really does suck). Imagine reviewing the literature on a particular subject
if there are one hundred dreadful articles that would have never made it
through a review process but are now published, along side "quality"
articles and so require consideration even if it is only for their
dismissal (is that the longest sentence I have written?).