With the opportunities offered by Internet servers of all kind, everybody is allowed to publish his thoughts and academic work alike. In doing so, one obtains an immediate opening of new work and an immediate response from the academic and non-academic society which is hungry to fresh ideas.
In the past decades, peer-reviewed papers have hang up for weeks, months and even years before someone of this elite group found the time to answer the author(s) with their comments and with the sent-back corrections. In certain cases one even got the feeling that the peer did not even understand what the author(s) wrote in their paper.
Can another system be called upon to cope with all the contents of the aforesaid paragraphs and substitute the existing peer-phenomenon?
Academia has developed tremendously and so did technology whereas peer-review has remained where it was 200 years ago until the present day.
I agree with Igor and Douglas that peer-reviewed papers is a necessary evil. I have published quite some work in top magazines but have also often found that the ego of some so-called 'peers' is sometimes so strong that they dictate you almost the conclusions that they prefer.
We have submitted COST Actions research proposals which were after having spent a lot of time to formulate them dismissed as 'not interesting at this moment'. I ask myself 'uninteresting to whom'? In a specific case., I have even proposed to figure out who the peers were together with their background and especially their hobbies. Once you know what the peers want, I found out, you can model your proposal according to the taste of the peer; a kind of spooky.
That this way of thinking is unethical, I know too, but even inside your both answers I am tasting that also you would like to have something else which would be welcomed by the majority of the academic world. I know Churchill's motto but that does not mean that I can ask around for a better answer than just accepting how things are, because they are like this. Nice weekend.
Dear Jan,
I think if in a well-known quotation from Winston Churchill about democracy ("It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time") we'll change "the democracy" for "peer-reviewer institution" it would be correct. Peer-reviewers protect our journals from weak (I don't want to use stronger words) papers, although this protection is not for 100% and sometimes the conclusions of two reviewers are contradictory. Nevertheless, if to cancel this institution, we receive a lot of papers with a very low quality, results of which are unfit to estimate and to use. The internet is not a panacea for all problems connected with peer-reviewing practice.
Best wishes.
I agree with Igor. I can't think of a viable alternative to ensure the quality of the published research. I review dozens of papers a year and find that most, while reasonably well-written, offer very little, if any, contribution to the body of knowledge. On occasion I see those very same papers appear in Open Journals where the authors pay to have their work published. Leads me to question the rigor of the for-profit journal publishers.
bottom-line is simple: if an author wants to disseminate her/his work expeditiously, there is nothing stopping that person from posting it as an unpublished document on the internet.
Good question with lots of food for thought!
I agree with Igor and Douglas that peer-reviewed papers is a necessary evil. I have published quite some work in top magazines but have also often found that the ego of some so-called 'peers' is sometimes so strong that they dictate you almost the conclusions that they prefer.
We have submitted COST Actions research proposals which were after having spent a lot of time to formulate them dismissed as 'not interesting at this moment'. I ask myself 'uninteresting to whom'? In a specific case., I have even proposed to figure out who the peers were together with their background and especially their hobbies. Once you know what the peers want, I found out, you can model your proposal according to the taste of the peer; a kind of spooky.
That this way of thinking is unethical, I know too, but even inside your both answers I am tasting that also you would like to have something else which would be welcomed by the majority of the academic world. I know Churchill's motto but that does not mean that I can ask around for a better answer than just accepting how things are, because they are like this. Nice weekend.
A very interesting discussion - a provocative question but all participants agree with each other!
Inna, yes, provocative but all agree in a way or another. This points to the fact that all know that it is not the best way to help scientific publications whereas all also know that there is nothing better to substitute it.
Perhaps I may suggest a solution based on the philosophical way of reasoning in the scheme called Major, minor , conclusion.
Major: All peers are the best in their profession and their ideas are welcome.
Minor: My peers are part of this group of excellence.
Conclusion: I am only interested in in my type of peers because we also know each other and our shortcomings on a personal level.
As a result, I am allowed to send my draft to MY PEERS and nobody else. Also the peer comments will be in the open and not a part of a secret organization as it is now.
When peers of every domain want to provide their comments after the publications, they are welcome, but why to utter these before the publication and delaying the publication process?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers