Peer-Review Under Review
in [Relativity]
|
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 2 Apr 2010 11:27 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/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/20100401.html http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: harald on 3 Apr 2010 18:40 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
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 4 Apr 2010 07:37 harald wrote on Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:40:11 -0700: > 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 Very informative! I am glad that confirms manyo of the fingings in my report (the author also chose the Schön scandal as illustration of fraud in physics!). My own proposal to improve Peer-Review is a kind of mixture of (Slide 43) "Open Peer Review" plus "Commentary-based" Please could you post your message in the blog http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html for that your useful reference can remain there archived? Thanks. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: Ken S. Tucker on 4 Apr 2010 14:39 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. 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
From: eric gisse on 4 Apr 2010 18:40
Ken S. Tucker wrote: [...] > 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. > so the temper of a team is reasonable. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker |