[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Pricesaurus = Anhanguera (Pterosauria) (free pdf)
William Parker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The problem is who is to decide what constitutes valid peer review?
> If you send the manuscript to one or two paleontologists who may not
> be subject experts, is this as valid a review as sending it to two
> persons who have published extensively on the subject? What if they
> have published extensively, but their views are not held by most in
> the field, does their review still count as "valid" for the purposes
> of the IZCN? I agree this needs to be done but it is a very slippery
I meant "peer review" as determined by the policy of the scientific
journal to which the manuscript is sent. Is this what you meant?
As you know (probably only too well!), scientific journals typically
have a process to determine if a manuscript should be published or not
by that journal. This means the editor(s) either rejects the
manuscript outright, or sends the paper out to workers in the field to
review. Whether or not the views of the reviewers count is determined
by the editor(s) of that journal. There have been times when I've
taken issue with some boneheaded comments by a reviewer of my
manuscripts; and often (but not always!) I've convinced the editor to
set aside those comments.
I know peer review is an imperfect process - to say the least. But
it's better than nothing at all.