Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: paparios on 7 Apr 2010 17:10 On 7 abr, 16:45, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:39:19 -0700: > > > > My point of view goes more with the following first part of that very > > same cite of yours, that you forgot to post: > > I do not forgot it, I cited the relevant part related to the proposals > done in another work [6]. > > You have now snipped the six references and most of the content of my message. > I do not know why you are always complaining about snipping, while knowing that all the 38 messages of this thread are stored and available for everyone willing to read them. I only snip for brevity and saving of bandwidth. Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to reference a report which is hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] and [6]. > > "Perceived lapses in the peer-review process often receive a lot of > > attention, but the majority of researchers declare themselves satisfied > > with the system even though they would like to improve it. If it is > > imperfect or broken, how do we fix it?" > > > First thing is to show it is imperfect or broken. > > This was already done. The same Nature blog (you sniped the link) > contains the data. More data is given in the other six references, which > you also sniped. > If so, then you can write the relevant parts, as I did below, instead of whining about snipping. > > Surveys such as > > presented in documents like "Peer review: benefits, perceptions and > > alternatives" (http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ > > PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf) agree with the opinion that the great majority > > of researchers do like this peer-review system as it is. > > The same text you cite above says: > > "the majority of researchers declare [...] they would like to improve it." > > In another of the references that you sniped the [2]. It was found that: > > "45% expected to see some changes in the peer-review system > within the next five years". > From which we can infer the 55% do not expect those changes to occur (count me in). > > Just a few results of that survey: "Peer review is widely supported by > > academics, who overwhelmingly (93%) disagreed in our survey that peer > > review is unnecessary. The large majority (85%) agreed that peer review > > greatly helps scientific communication and believed (83%) that without > > peer review there would be no control." > > Which agrees with my point. This thread is about IMPROVING peer-review > not about eliminating it. This has been emphasized many times here... > Miguel Rios
From: eric gisse on 7 Apr 2010 19:11 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote: [...] > Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to > reference a report which is hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] and > [6]. I've been making this complaint on a semi-regular basis for two years now. Good luck with that. [...]
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 8 Apr 2010 06:26 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:10:39 -0700: > On 7 abr, 16:45, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 05:39:19 -0700: >> >> >> > My point of view goes more with the following first part of that very >> > same cite of yours, that you forgot to post: >> >> I do not forgot it, I cited the relevant part related to the proposals >> done in another work [6]. >> >> You have now snipped the six references and most of the content of my >> message. >> >> > I do not know why you are always complaining about snipping, I will explain you in a simple way: *You are snipping for lying*. > while > knowing that all the 38 messages of this thread are stored and available > for everyone willing to read them. I only snip for brevity and saving of > bandwidth. Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to reference a report > which is hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] and [6]. *Liar* I have given 6 references. As you say they are archived in previous messages. I reintroduce them here [1] Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship. www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt [2] The Peer-Review Process, Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247-258. [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_improving.html [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html Neither [3] or [6] are behind a pay wall. Liar :-D >> > "Perceived lapses in the peer-review process often receive a lot of >> > attention, but the majority of researchers declare themselves >> > satisfied with the system even though they would like to improve it. >> > If it is imperfect or broken, how do we fix it?" >> >> > First thing is to show it is imperfect or broken. >> >> This was already done. The same Nature blog (you sniped the link) >> contains the data. More data is given in the other six references, >> which you also sniped. >> >> > If so, then you can write the relevant parts, as I did below, instead of > whining about snipping. > >> > Surveys such as >> > presented in documents like "Peer review: benefits, perceptions and >> > alternatives" (http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ >> > PRCsummary4Warefinal.pdf) agree with the opinion that the great >> > majority of researchers do like this peer-review system as it is. >> >> The same text you cite above says: >> >> "the majority of researchers declare [...] they would like to improve >> it." >> >> In another of the references that you sniped the [2]. It was found >> that: >> >> "45% expected to see some changes in the peer-review system >> within the next five years". >> >> > From which we can infer the 55% do not expect those changes to occur > (count me in). > >> > Just a few results of that survey: "Peer review is widely supported >> > by academics, who overwhelmingly (93%) disagreed in our survey that >> > peer review is unnecessary. The large majority (85%) agreed that peer >> > review greatly helps scientific communication and believed (83%) that >> > without peer review there would be no control." >> >> Which agrees with my point. This thread is about IMPROVING peer-review >> not about eliminating it. This has been emphasized many times here... >> >> > > Miguel Rios -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 8 Apr 2010 06:29 eric gisse wrote on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:11:58 -0700: > paparios(a)gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > >> Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to reference a report which is >> hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] and [6]. > > I've been making this complaint on a semi-regular basis for two years > now. Good luck with that. Your lies are well-known. I have given 6 references. They are archived in previous messages. I reintroduce them here [1] Alternative Peer Review: Quality Management for 21st Century Scholarship. www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/APR-1.ppt [2] The Peer-Review Process, Learned Publishing 15 no. 4 (October 2002): 247-258. [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_improving.html [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html Neither [3] or [6] are behind a pay wall. They are open source references. Both of you are lying :-D > [...] -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 8 Apr 2010 09:11
On 8 abr, 06:26, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:10:39 -0700: > > > >> You have now snipped the six references and most of the content of my > >> message. > > > I do not know why you are always complaining about snipping, > > I will explain you in a simple way: *You are snipping for lying*. > Now you are resorting to insults. Nobody in these groups is obliged to reproduce anything of the previous posts, especially when all of the previous 41 posts of the thread are, again, available for everyone to read. Don't you understand that? > > while > > knowing that all the 38 messages of this thread are stored and available > > for everyone willing to read them. I only snip for brevity and saving of > > bandwidth. Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to reference a report > > which is hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] and [6]. > > *Liar* > Again, more insults. Well now we have access to your report cited as [6]. After reading it I do not find anything there that significantly contributes to the subject. Lots of whining and the insulting use of the "salami science" expression, plus some useless suggestions (if you insist that "Several suggestions from HARRY MORROW BROWN, LEE SMOLIN, LINDA COOPER, and the present author for solving the problems are included in the report", it would be better if you put all these suggestions in a separate section of the report). Regarding reference [3], it is nothing but some link to other pages and, of course, again to your own report [6]. You should include in that report that self referencing is indeed an unsolved problem in published papers and make some suggestion on that topic. > I have given 6 references. As you say they are archived in previous messages. > I reintroduce them here And, again, I snip them because it is idiotic to repeat, post after post, the same information. Miguel Rios |