Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 4 Apr 2010 21:24 Ken S. Tucker wrote on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:39:40 -0700: > On Apr 3, 3:40 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Apr 2, 5:27 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez >> >> >> >> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> 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. >> >> [..] >> >> Here's another one that says it all - (and yes this is the 21st >> century!): >> >> "Alternative Peer Review: >> Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship" >> >> www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt >> >> Harald > > Hi Harald et al. > I had a problem accessing that link. It worked for me. The talk (> 200 slides) is very informative. > Science is an evolutionary process, built by steps, so a firm > publication helps as a foot-note to improved scientific understanding, > so to that end I've provided some briefs at this link for example, > > http://physics.trak4.com/ > > which all are welcome to, and usually an acknowledged source is just > etiquette. > For those who seek a professional standing in theoretics and are unable > to find commercial employment, then they are stuck in academia, teaching > and furthering their way via 'peer reviewed' publication, hoping for > tenure. > > For peer review, the author(s) should have a critical assessment by 2 > others (consultants/co-authors) that can act as advisors and supporters, > I find solitary authors emotionally involved with their achievements, so > the temper of a team is reasonable. Regards > Ken S. Tucker -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 4 Apr 2010 21:26 eric gisse wrote on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:40:25 -0700: > Ken S. Tucker wrote: > > [...] And here you snipped the link to the useful and very informative cited by Harald for... >> For peer review, the author(s) should have a critical assessment by 2 >> others (consultants/co-authors) that can act as advisors and >> supporters, I find solitary authors emotionally involved with their >> achievements, > > Which neatly explains why you can't digest honest assessments of your > spew. .... submit your usual ad hominem. You alone are doing evident on what you are interested :-D >> so the temper of a team is reasonable. Regards >> Ken S. Tucker -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 5 Apr 2010 08:59 eric gisse wrote on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:00:10 -0700: > Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > >> eric gisse wrote on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:40:25 -0700: >> >>> Ken S. Tucker wrote: >>> >>> [...] >> >> And here you snipped the link to the useful and very informative cited >> by Harald for... > > Was I responding to harald? No because you are not interested in the very informative link that he added. You are only interested in straw man and trolling us. This is the reason which you snipped it, the same as you sistematically snip the relevant info of the messages. >>>> For peer review, the author(s) should have a critical assessment by 2 >>>> others (consultants/co-authors) that can act as advisors and >>>> supporters, I find solitary authors emotionally involved with their >>>> achievements, >>> >>> Which neatly explains why you can't digest honest assessments of your >>> spew. >> >> ... submit your usual ad hominem. > > Even you should be able to see why Ken's writings are nonsense. The topic of this thread is not Ken abilities/mistakes. The topic is another and your contribution to it is zero. All of your posts are the usual submission of your ad hominems and lies :-D -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 5 Apr 2010 09:42 On 2 abr, 11:27, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> 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. > I publish and review papers and my opinion is that the peer review system is the only working system. Does it have some problems? For sure it does!! But also it produces a logical way of improving the research. I submit a paper and it gets rejected...too bad...but I will get in most cases a feedback from my peers which, at least in my experience, will always help in improving the paper for either a resubmission or for another journal. The time delay problem is true. We have a paper which took three years from initial submission to publication. That delay may affect research reporting to funding agencies. Of course, there are journals which can get the job done in a few months, so alternatives do exist. Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 5 Apr 2010 11:52
paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 06:42:54 -0700: > On 2 abr, 11:27, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> 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. >> >> > I publish and review papers and my opinion is that the peer review > system is the only working system. And what about the suggestions done for improve it? > Does it have some problems? For sure > it does!! But also it produces a logical way of improving the research. > I submit a paper and it gets rejected...too bad...but I will get in most > cases a feedback from my peers which, at least in my experience, will > always help in improving the paper for either a resubmission or for > another journal. > The time delay problem is true. We have a paper which took three years > from initial submission to publication. That delay may affect research > reporting to funding agencies. Of course, there are journals which can > get the job done in a few months, so alternatives do exist. > > Miguel Rios -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |