Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Replacement for the current peer review system

  1. #1 Replacement for the current peer review system 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    75
    I would like some feedback about this idea please.

    There are numerous studies that have discovered evidence of bias influencing the peer review process (message me and I will send you some references). In order to greatly reduce this bias, I propose getting rid of the process altogether.

    Instead, all journals go electronic so that they can be accessed from the internet. Anyone with a verifiable Master's degree can publish their research without approval. Comments are allowed concerning the paper such that anyone reading about this research will also have access to the comments. Comments are allowed only by others with verifiable Master's degrees. Thus, these comments will function in the same way as comments from reviewers except that no one's research will be concealed. If someone believes the research to be low or high in quality they can argue their case in these comments. The author(s) of these papers may also defend their research against any criticisms.

    The benefit of this is that no one's research will be hidden from the world due to bias. Currently, there is a great deal of research that has been conducted that no one knows about except the researcher(s). Who knows what knowledge exists that we are being prohibited from being exposed to?

    Comments?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    remember all the hype around the adapid "Ida" on PLoS ? in case you've missed it, here's a commentary on the subject :

    Poor, poor Ida, Or: "Overselling an Adapid"

    the reason for the hype ? it was media-driven and not peer-reviewed

    peer review may not be ideal, but it's a bit like Churchill's quip about democracy : "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Anyone can publish their research on the internet without peer review.

    You don't even need a masters. You just need server space.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Anyone can publish their research on the internet without peer review.

    You don't even need a masters. You just need server space.
    I am not talking about science blogs. I am saying that there will still be e-journals that people can read with a paid subscription, but that in order to have an article posted in this e-journal one would need a verifiable Master's degree.

    I was really hoping for a comment about the idea. Does anyone think that the current peer-review system should stay as is, or do you think my idea will be an improvement?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i should say to keep it - the alternative is that anything goes, and before you know it you'll have creationists claiming that they're equally respectable as proper scientists because they can show a record of published papers - they already try that one now, but since it's not peer-reviewed, everyone knows it's just a smoke screen

    the peer review may not always get it right, but at least it maintains a minimum standard which keeps the loonies at bay
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ufcarazy
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Anyone can publish their research on the internet without peer review.

    You don't even need a masters. You just need server space.
    I am not talking about science blogs. I am saying that there will still be e-journals that people can read with a paid subscription, but that in order to have an article posted in this e-journal one would need a verifiable Master's degree.

    I was really hoping for a comment about the idea. Does anyone think that the current peer-review system should stay as is, or do you think my idea will be an improvement?
    The peer review doesn't check if you have a degree. They merely register with what scientific institute you are associated with. And it really doesn't mean that you need an academic association to publish in peer reviewed journals. What matters is the quality and content of the paper.

    It is really a matter of looking for excuses not to submit to a peer reviewed journal if you start bitching about needing a masters, or the inaccessibility of peer reviewed journals.

    Because it is nonsense.

    There are plenty of open access journals nowadays in most fields of science to which you can send your work. They usually ask for a publication fee, but you DON'T have to pay it for many journals. You can simply state that you do not have the funds. This is for instance the policy in PLoS One. The reviewers will actually not even know that you are not paying so it isn't going to influence the decision to publish or not.

    So stop making excuses. I also wrote a paper in my spare time this year and submitted it to an open access journal. Actually first I submitted to a quite decent journal: BioEssays. I had written a pre-submission enquiry and the result was positive. Unfortunately one of the reviewers was a bit vicious. So we then send it to PLoS one, where it was finally accepted after some revisions. We had to prove that some of the databases were solid enough, and there was some slight re-writing involved.

    Do you think amateur scientists do not exist? There was this guy in Texas (I think) that did better Ozon layer research than the Nasa hotshots. From his garden. And he published regularly in Nature, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the entire field of science. He is really not the only one.

    What these people share though is passion for the subject. They aren't really looking for excuses.

    A lot of peer-reviewed journals are nowadays accessible for everyone btw. There has been an explosion of Open Acces journals and many of the old fashioned styled journals have adopted a system where their papers become freely available after a year. So it is only the first year that paid subscriptions have free access.

    Moreover, you can go to the university library and there you can just read the hardcopies.

    So, stop dreaming.

    Write up the manuscript.

    And just submit.


    Some top tips:
    Read the instructions of the journal.
    Do a presubmission enquiry. It saves you a lot of time.
    Don't give up if a journal sends back the manuscript immediately. It just happens. Most journals have a limited scope and it could just be what they are not looking for.
    Stay professional in your correspondence with the editors. Keep your focus on the science and don't get personal for instance if a reviewer is negative.
    Wait 24hrs before you respond to a rejection.
    Be your own reviewer. What are the holes in your manuscript. Can you close them?
    Let someone else read it with experience in science. Not some internet nut.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Replacement for the current peer review system 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ufcarazy

    The benefit of this is that no one's research will be hidden from the world due to bias. Currently, there is a great deal of research that has been conducted that no one knows about except the researcher(s). Who knows what knowledge exists that we are being prohibited from being exposed to?
    It's mostly negative results. Or research that repeats other work.

    There are journals nowadays that are meant for this kind of research. PLoS One for instance only has the criteria that the science is correct.

    There is also the journal for negative results.

    But writing up this stuff costs time. It isn't always worth it.

    Another category of unpublished results can be found in big groups. They keep unpublished data unpublished to give them an edge. Even if data is negative it gives them an edge. It tells them where not to look. But competitors don't know about it of course. So they might look there. So win win situation to keep this data under the table.

    Also some basic data is required for deeper insight. Why share it if you can keep it to yourself and then work on the big paper.

    Then there is the third category of results that contradict existing results. These are very difficult to publish because once something is published it becomes the truth. If the group who published it is a hot shot in science they can really block other groups by means of the peer review process. Because usually they end up being asked as reviewers.
    The other option would be to publish the contradicting results in a really low journal, but there is no money in that. You could avoid hot shot reviewers like that of course.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •