Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 9 Apr 2010 05:38 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:30:14 -0700: > On 8 abr, 15:15, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:34:50 -0700: > > >> > Well, you are a liar too!!! since link [3] also points to report [6], >> > so you have two of your reference links pointing to the same report. >> > That page is stored. Liar!!. >> >> That is just that I wrote above. I will explain to you again. I gave >> six references, one of the link to a paper from mine (reference [6]) >> and other reference (reference [3]) is a news which links to both [6] >> and the blog entry by Mitch. >> >> > Liar!!! You are changing your version. You continue *lying* miserably. After what you had written I added "That is just that I wrote above" and then I explained to you again, giving *more* info, but it was useless... > You previously wrote "I have > given 6 references, which only one of them link to a paper from mine and > the other indirectly links to a blog from Mitch reporting *both* the > recent ACS talk by Warr and my report." That is right. I already wrote "That is just that I wrote" and I can verify it again: "That is just that I wrote". > The truth is that in reference > [3] you wrote "Other problems with peer-review include the demonstration > that it is useless at detecting research fraud. 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.", where the last part > is a link to that report. You see, this is a direct link and the Mitch > character has nothing to do with it. *Liar*. As I said and is still quoted above "(reference [3]) is a news which links to both [6] and the blog entry by Mitch" The first part of the link start citing Mitch blog and giving a direct link to it. This is the content [3]: "In his blog ACS – Day 4: Peer-Review Reviewed (external hyperlink), Mitch takes notices of a critique given by Wendy Warr on the current state of chemical peer-review at the recent ACS National Meeting in San Francisco. She reports some problems with peer-review, but did not give many solutions to these problems. Other problems with peer-review include the demonstration that it is useless at detecting research fraud. 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." *LIAR* > Now explain why, when using your reference [3] link, it appears the > following "The requested URL > http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20 > does not exist."?? ...Liar!!! Very simple, you are giving a wrong URL probably because you are posting using Groups webpage which has a tendency to break large URLs. Not only you are giving an inexistent URL to canonicalscience site, but you are below also giving an inexistent URL to Nature blog. > Again here are the original link for people to see for themselves. I > have copied the original web page of reference [3]. You give [1,2,4] correct but wrong [3,5,6]. Those are: [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_improving.html [6] http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html > [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/20... > > [4] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ > > [5] > http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_impr... > > [6] > http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/2008... > > Miguel Rios -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 9 Apr 2010 05:50 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:35:56 -0700: > On 8 abr, 15:30, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Again here are the original link for people to see for themselves. I >> have copied the original web page of reference [3]. >> >> [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/20... >> >> [4]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/ >> >> [5]http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_impr... >> >> [6]http://canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/2008... >> >> Miguel Rios > > Correction. The working canonical links are: > > [3] > http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html Apart from giving the wrong URL for reference [5] now you want give a *different* URL from what I have given for [3] before!!! You are a very funny poster :-D [3] http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_improving.html > [6] > http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html > Miguel Rios -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 9 Apr 2010 08:39 On 9 abr, 05:38, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:30:14 -0700: > You see Juan, we have come to 50 posts here where, apart from a couple addressing the topic, most have been related to unsubstantial stuff such as who is lying about what link and all sort of irrelevant things. That is your problem always. Why you just not concentrate on the topic at hand instead of whining endlessly? So, I will not follow you on that route. Coming back to the topic, if you dig inside your reference [5], you will find the preliminary findings of the Peer Review Survey 2009 (see http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/395), which is one of the largest ever international surveys of authors and reviewers. The Peer Review Survey was an electronic survey conducted between 28th July 2009 and 11th August 2009; 40,000 researchers were randomly selected from the ISI author database, which contains published researchers from over 10,000 journals. Altogether 4,037 researchers completed the survey. The error margin was ± 1.5% at 95% confidence levels; reviewers answered a subset of questions aimed specifically at reviewers (3,597 - a subset of the base) the error margin for this group was ± 1.6% at 95% confidence levels. The preliminary findings include: 1. Playing an active role in the community is top of reasons to review: 90% say they review because they believe they are playing an active role in the community; only 16% say that increasing their chances of having future papers accepted is a reason to review. 2. Researchers want to improve, not replace peer review: * 84% believe that without peer review there would be no control in scientific communication, but only a third (32%) think it is the best that can be achieved; 20% of researchers believe that peer review is unsustainable because of too few willing reviewers. * 91% say that their last paper was improved through peer review; the discussion was the biggest area of improvement. * 73% of reviewers (a sub-group) say that technological advances have made it easier to do a thorough job than 5 years ago. Whilst 86% enjoy reviewing, 56% say there is a lack of guidance on how to review; 68% think formal training would help. On average, reviewers turn down two papers a year. * Just 15% of respondents felt that 'formal' peer review could be replaced by usage statistics. * 61% of reviewers have rejected an invitation to review an article in the last year, citing lack of expertise as the main reason - this suggests that journals could better identify suitable reviewers. 3. High expectations: * 79% or more of researchers think that peer review should identify the best papers, determine their originality and importance, improve those papers and, though lower scoring, also determine whether research is plagiarised or fraudulent. * While 43% of respondents thought peer review was too slow, 65% of authors (a further sub-group) reported that they had received a decision on their most recent paper within 3 months. 4. Reviewers want anonymity: 58% would be less likely to review if their signed report was published. 76% favour the double blind system where just the editor knows who the reviewers are. 5. Understanding of peer review: Researchers agree that peer review is well understood by the scientific community but just 30% believe the public understands the term. 6. Papers aren't recognising previous work: 81% think peer review should ensure previous research is acknowledged; 54% think it currently does. This reflects current concerns in the research community. 7. Detecting plagiarism and fraud might be a noble aim but is not practical: A majority think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) or fraud (79%) but fewer (38% and 33%) think it is capable of this. 8. Reviewers divided over incentives: Just over half of reviewers think receiving a payment in kind (e.g. subscription) would make them more likely to review; 41% wanted payment for reviewing, but this drops to just 2.5% if the author had to cover the cost. I agree with 100% of these findings Miguel Rios
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 9 Apr 2010 12:04 paparios(a)gmail.com wrote on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:39:27 -0700: > On 9 abr, 05:38, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:30:14 -0700: >> >> > You see Juan, we have come to 50 posts here where, apart from a couple > addressing the topic, most have been related to unsubstantial stuff such > as who is lying about what link and all sort of irrelevant things. You may consider irrelevant to do false accusations as yours "Furthermore it is quite unorthodox to reference a report which is hidden behind a pay wall like your [3] and [6]." when both are open access. You may also consider irrelevant to write "Now explain why, when using your reference [3] link, it appears the following "The requested URL http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20 does not exist."?? ...Liar!!!" When the problem was that your Groups interface has broken large URLs. It also broken the link to Nature blog. I do not consider that irrelevant. > That > is your problem always. Why you just not concentrate on the topic at > hand instead of whining endlessly? Good idea! If you retract from your accusations I will retract from the mines. I restart now my communication with you. > So, I will not follow you on that route. Coming back to the topic, if > you dig inside your reference [5], you will find the preliminary [5] http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/10/nature_chemistry_on_improving.html > findings of the Peer Review Survey 2009 (see > http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/395), which > is one of the largest ever international surveys of authors and > reviewers. The Peer Review Survey was an electronic survey conducted > between 28th July 2009 and 11th August 2009; 40,000 researchers were > randomly selected from the ISI author database, which contains published > researchers from over 10,000 journals. Altogether 4,037 researchers > completed the survey. The error margin was ± 1.5% at 95% confidence > levels; reviewers answered a subset of questions aimed specifically at > reviewers (3,597 - a subset of the base) the error margin for this group > was ± 1.6% at 95% confidence levels. The preliminary findings include: > > 1. Playing an active role in the community is top of reasons to > review: 90% say they review because they believe they are playing an > active role in the community; only 16% say that increasing their chances > of having future papers accepted is a reason to review. That is good. > 2. Researchers want to improve, not replace peer review: And my goal is to improve peer-review. > * 84% believe that without peer review there would be no > control in scientific communication, but only a third (32%) think it is > the best that can be achieved; 20% of researchers believe that peer > review is unsustainable because of too few willing reviewers. I am among that 84% and this is one of my main disagreements with Alexander Shagaev from the sciencereform project. He want to eliminate peer-review. > * 91% say that their last paper was improved through peer > review; the discussion was the biggest area of improvement. I understand peer-review not only as a check but as an oportunity on improving the draft. > * 73% of reviewers (a sub-group) say that technological > advances have made it easier to do a thorough job than 5 years ago. > Whilst 86% enjoy reviewing, 56% say there is a lack of guidance on how > to review; 68% think formal training would help. On average, reviewers > turn down two papers a year. > * Just 15% of respondents felt that 'formal' peer review > could be replaced by usage statistics. I disagree if by usage statistic this is some kind of users rating. I addressed this topic in the sciencereform site. My main point was that statistics would distort the true importance and quality of a paper. > * 61% of reviewers have rejected an invitation to review an > article in the last year, citing lack of expertise as the main reason - > this suggests that journals could better identify suitable reviewers. How? Moreover, I fail to see a problem here. > 3. High expectations: > * 79% or more of researchers think that peer review should > identify the best papers, determine their originality and importance, > improve those papers and, though lower scoring, also determine whether > research is plagiarised or fraudulent. But objective data proves just the contrary all the best papers have been sistematically underevaluated by peer-review. By best papers I mean revolutionary papers that were rejected but finally awarded by a Nobel Prize. I gave a list of 34 of those, with authors explaining how their nobel awarded work was rejected by the 'experts'. > * While 43% of respondents thought peer review was too slow, > 65% of authors (a further sub-group) reported that they had received a > decision on their most recent paper within 3 months. I have absolutely no idea about how improve this point. > 4. Reviewers want anonymity: 58% would be less likely to review if > their signed report was published. 76% favour the double blind system > where just the editor knows who the reviewers are. Could this imply that 58% of reviewers are abusing from anonimity and want to continue to do it? Could this imply that 58% of reviewers do not want their names to be associated to the papers they accept (maybe because wannot be associated to frauds as Schön scandal)? Could this imply that 58% of reviewers like anonimity to rejected the papers of rival theories or rival funding projects? Could this imply that 58% of reviewers like anonimity to accept the papers of like theories or friends? I don't know. However, BMJ reports that when they took the decision to apply an improved peer-review system where reviewers are not anonymous, almost all the reviewers accepted the new system and continued to review and only some few of them resigned. > 5. Understanding of peer review: Researchers agree that peer review > is well understood by the scientific community but just 30% believe the > public understands the term. > > 6. Papers aren't recognising previous work: 81% think peer review > should ensure previous research is acknowledged; Do you mean priority issues? > 54% think it currently > does. This reflects current concerns in the research community. > 7. Detecting plagiarism and fraud might be a noble aim but is not > practical: A majority think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) > or fraud (79%) but fewer (38% and 33%) think it is capable of this. I think that the problem with most of current peer-review is that it is merely a review of the paper from a print-point of view. In a review from a datument point of view, referees could ask for extra info as raw data and perform extra checks that would detect fraud as that of the Schön scandal. > 8. Reviewers divided over incentives: Just over half of reviewers > think receiving a payment in kind (e.g. subscription) would make them > more likely to review; This is precisely the kind of payment we decided. > 41% wanted payment for reviewing, but this drops > to just 2.5% if the author had to cover the cost. Authors would not pay. They are already giving their work for free to journals! Commercial journals as those from Elsevier have enough economic benefits and ejecutives of 'scientific' bodies as ACS have over-inflated salaries. Take the money for reviewers from there. > I agree with 100% of these findings > > Miguel Rios -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: paparios on 9 Apr 2010 14:12
On 9 abr, 12:04, "Juan R." González-Álvarez <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: > papar...(a)gmail.com wrote on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:39:27 -0700: > > * 61% of reviewers have rejected an invitation to review an > > article in the last year, citing lack of expertise as the main reason - > > this suggests that journals could better identify suitable reviewers. > > How? Moreover, I fail to see a problem here. > Well, the problem is that in certain areas of knowledge, the degree of specialization is such that only those reviewers working in the same and, sometimes, quite narrow subject can even understand the used terminology. This, of course, may not be the area of expertise of the editor assigning the papers to reviewers and, so, the paper may be sent to improper reviewers. > > 3. High expectations: > > * 79% or more of researchers think that peer review should > > identify the best papers, determine their originality and importance, > > improve those papers and, though lower scoring, also determine whether > > research is plagiarised or fraudulent. > > But objective data proves just the contrary all the best papers have been > sistematically underevaluated by peer-review. By best papers I mean > revolutionary papers that were rejected but finally awarded by a Nobel Prize. > I gave a list of 34 of those, with authors explaining how their nobel awarded > work was rejected by the 'experts'. > I agree that doing that is quite difficult. Doing so would require the reviewers to be of the same, or similar level as the authors of those best papers. For example, Albert Einstein's 1905 papers in Annalen der Physik were reviewed by the journal's editor in chief, Max Planck (the father of quantum theory), and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, which were clearly peers (both won Nobel prizes in physics) and quite able to understand the relevance of Einstein's writings. > > * While 43% of respondents thought peer review was too slow, > > 65% of authors (a further sub-group) reported that they had received a > > decision on their most recent paper within 3 months. > > I have absolutely no idea about how improve this point. I agree it is difficult. One additional difficulty has to do with the ever increasing production of papers, which overload most of journals. Some of them have to, from time to time, publish special issues in order to limit the delay. I have in my shelves one of these issues with over 1800 pages published in only one month. That journal only accepts on the order of 10% of the submissions. > > > 4. Reviewers want anonymity: 58% would be less likely to review if > > their signed report was published. 76% favour the double blind system > > where just the editor knows who the reviewers are. > > Could this imply that 58% of reviewers are abusing from anonimity and want > to continue to do it? > I do not see how this could be possible. As the survey reports, the number of papers per reviewer is quite low (I may review 2 or three papers per year per journal). So the reviewer impact in this sense is quite small. > Could this imply that 58% of reviewers do not want their names to be > associated to the papers they accept (maybe because wannot be associated > to frauds as Schön scandal)? > > Could this imply that 58% of reviewers like anonimity to rejected the papers > of rival theories or rival funding projects? > Again this is quite impossible in practical terms. > Could this imply that 58% of reviewers like anonimity to accept the papers > of like theories or friends? > Again quite improbable. You could instead argue that some editor of a journal, who you know, as a personal favor could give you a little help by assigning your paper to more forgiving reviewers. Again I doubt that has any real impact. > I don't know. > > However, BMJ reports that when they took the decision to apply an > improved peer-review system where reviewers are not anonymous, almost > all the reviewers accepted the new system and continued to review and only > some few of them resigned. > My position is neutral with respect to this issue. I do not care if my reviews are known to the authors. One of the journals I review has a kind of mixed system, where I can write some specific recommendations to the authors and/or write some comments only to the editor of the journal. > > 5. Understanding of peer review: Researchers agree that peer review > > is well understood by the scientific community but just 30% believe the > > public understands the term. > > > 6. Papers aren't recognising previous work: 81% think peer review > > should ensure previous research is acknowledged; > > Do you mean priority issues? > I think they refer to authors not properly acknowledging the work of previous authors, on the same subject, which in many cases could lead to repeat the same research. > > 54% think it currently > > does. This reflects current concerns in the research community. > > 7. Detecting plagiarism and fraud might be a noble aim but is not > > practical: A majority think peer review should detect plagiarism (81%) > > or fraud (79%) but fewer (38% and 33%) think it is capable of this. > > I think that the problem with most of current peer-review is that it is > merely a review of the paper from a print-point of view. > > In a review from a datument point of view, referees could ask for extra > info as raw data and perform extra checks that would detect fraud as that > of the Schön scandal. > I doubt most of reviewers are willing to waste more valuable time on that line. Miguel Rios |