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

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

Brad Guth wrote on Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:08:21 -0700:

On Apr 2, 7:34Â*am, "Juan R." González-Ã�lvarez
wrote:
Wendy Warr, an associate editor for ACS, gave a bleak and blistering
critique on the current state Â*of peer-review at the recent ACS
National.

Problems with Peer-Review:

Â* * It can delay publications for months. * An editor can make or
Â* break a paper by sending it to the author's
Â* Â* friends or competitors.
Â* * Historically biased against women, single authors, etc... * It
Â* costs reviewers’ time (she gave a statistic that 41% of
Â* Â* reviewers would like to be paid).
Â* * Reviewers tend to favor conservative science and not far-out new
Â* Â* ideas.
Â* * Difficult finding qualified reviewers for multidisciplinary work.
Â* * Basing the quality of a paper on 2 reviewers, basically just
Â* Â* 2-data points, is statistically insignificant.
Â* * As more papers are being submitted the burden for reviewers is
Â* Â* 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