|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Peer-Review Under Review
Wendy Warr, an associate editor for ACS, gave a bleak and blistering critique on the current state of peer-review at the recent ACS National. Problems with Peer-Review: * It can delay publications for months. * An editor can make or break a paper by sending it to the author's friends or competitors. * Historically biased against women, single authors, etc... * It costs reviewers’ time (she gave a statistic that 41% of reviewers would like to be paid). * Reviewers tend to favor conservative science and not far-out new ideas. * Difficult finding qualified reviewers for multidisciplinary work. * Basing the quality of a paper on 2 reviewers, basically just 2-data points, is statistically insignificant. * As more papers are being submitted the burden for reviewers is increasing. She forgot an important problem: peer-review is useless at detecting fraud. For instance all the papers involved in the Schön scandal (considered the "Biggest Fraud in Physics") were peer-reviewed. Warr did not give many solutions to these problems. A set of solutions to the problems of peer-review is given in the report "Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic issues". Additional info and references are given in Mitch blog entry: "ACS – Day 4: Peer-Review Reviewed" You can state your opinion, share your experience, submit your own proposal for solving the problems, etc. BLOG AND EVENT: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ.../20100401.html http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...encetoday.html -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...encetoday.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Peer-Review Under Review
On Apr 2, 7:34*am, "Juan R." Gonzlez-lvarez
wrote: Wendy Warr, an associate editor for ACS, gave a bleak and blistering critique on the current state *of peer-review at the recent ACS National. Problems with Peer-Review: * * It can delay publications for months. * * An editor can make or break a paper by sending it to the author's * * friends or competitors. * * Historically biased against women, single authors, etc... * * It costs reviewers time (she gave a statistic that 41% of * * reviewers would like to be paid). * * Reviewers tend to favor conservative science and not far-out new * * ideas. * * Difficult finding qualified reviewers for multidisciplinary work. * * Basing the quality of a paper on 2 reviewers, basically just * * 2-data points, is statistically insignificant. * * As more papers are being submitted the burden for reviewers is * * increasing. She forgot an important problem: peer-review is useless at detecting fraud. For instance all the papers involved in the Schn scandal (considered the "Biggest Fraud in Physics") were peer-reviewed. Warr did not give many solutions to these problems. A set of solutions to the problems of peer-review is given in the report "Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic issues". Additional info and references are given in Mitch blog entry: "ACS Day 4: Peer-Review Reviewed" You can state your opinion, share your experience, submit your own proposal for solving the problems, etc. BLOG AND EVENT: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...ciencetoday/20... http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...ciencetoday/ca... --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...ciencetoday/ca... You can also deliver a hundred pages of valid research and deductive discovery details has having but one mistake, one error or one exaggeration, and it's all for nothing. Peer review means that you'll eventually be accepted as long as nothing new or improved is proposed or implied. In other words, new research dare not discredit or depose previous work that got mainstream peer accepted and published. ~ BG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Peer-Review Under Review
Brad Guth wrote on Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:08:21 -0700:
On Apr 2, 7:34*am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote: Wendy Warr, an associate editor for ACS, gave a bleak and blistering critique on the current state *of peer-review at the recent ACS National. Problems with Peer-Review: * * It can delay publications for months. * An editor can make or * break a paper by sending it to the author's * * friends or competitors. * * Historically biased against women, single authors, etc... * It * costs reviewers’ time (she gave a statistic that 41% of * * reviewers would like to be paid). * * Reviewers tend to favor conservative science and not far-out new * * ideas. * * Difficult finding qualified reviewers for multidisciplinary work. * * Basing the quality of a paper on 2 reviewers, basically just * * 2-data points, is statistically insignificant. * * As more papers are being submitted the burden for reviewers is * * increasing. She forgot an important problem: peer-review is useless at detecting fraud. For instance all the papers involved in the Schön scandal (considered the "Biggest Fraud in Physics") were peer-reviewed. Warr did not give many solutions to these problems. A set of solutions to the problems of peer-review is given in the report "Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic issues". Additional info and references are given in Mitch blog entry: "ACS – Day 4: Peer-Review Reviewed" You can state your opinion, share your experience, submit your own proposal for solving the problems, etc. BLOG AND EVENT: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...ciencetoday/20... http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...ciencetoday/ca... --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...ciencetoday/ca... You can also deliver a hundred pages of valid research and deductive discovery details has having but one mistake, one error or one exaggeration, and it's all for nothing. Peer review means that you'll eventually be accepted as long as nothing new or improved is proposed or implied. In other words, new research dare not discredit or depose previous work that got mainstream peer accepted and published. ~ BG Peer review means "review by peers". Another thing is that actually 'peer-review' is being used by mainstream scientists to reinforce ortodoxy rather than quality or, even as the Nobel laureate Schwinger reports, 'peer-review' is being used for, his own words: "anonymous censhorship". See the next report for details, full quotes, and extra references, http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...rts/20082.html -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...encetoday.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Retroactive peer review | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | April 3rd 08 01:21 AM |
Call for Peer Review: Exormetism | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | February 7th 07 10:31 PM |
Call for Peer Review: Exormetism | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 29th 07 12:59 AM |
Repost: Scientific Peer Review: Is It A Thing Of The Past? | ~A~ | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 2nd 04 04:57 PM |
Peer Review | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 18th 03 05:42 PM |