Comments on: Peer review http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/ The eternal comprehensibility of beauty Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:17:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: New paper on arXiv « Phil Wilson’s Mathematics Weblog http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1433 New paper on arXiv « Phil Wilson’s Mathematics Weblog Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:56:17 +0000 http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1433 [...] accused of rejecting science in favour of bias « Phil Wilson’s Mathematics Weblog on Peer reviewPhil Wilson on Peer reviewPhil Wilson on Scientific Fundamentalismbobleckridge on [...] [...] accused of rejecting science in favour of bias « Phil Wilson’s Mathematics Weblog on Peer reviewPhil Wilson on Peer reviewPhil Wilson on Scientific Fundamentalismbobleckridge on [...]

]]> By: Nature accused of rejecting science in favour of bias « Phil Wilson’s Mathematics Weblog http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1368 Nature accused of rejecting science in favour of bias « Phil Wilson’s Mathematics Weblog Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:00:11 +0000 http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1368 [...] Comments Phil Wilson on Peer reviewPhil Wilson on Scientific Fundamentalismbobleckridge on [...] [...] Comments Phil Wilson on Peer reviewPhil Wilson on Scientific Fundamentalismbobleckridge on [...]

]]> By: Phil Wilson http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1273 Phil Wilson Fri, 08 Feb 2008 09:35:11 +0000 http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1273 Thanks for your considered response and synpathy, Bob. It's often a little tricky to raise these issues because it can sound like sour grapes; it's usually those to whom rejection is a frequent visitor who complain about peer review. That doesn't negate the serious criticisms of it, however. Why not make all peer review double blind, for example. I read recently (urgh, where? SciAm?) that in a wee experiment, a couple of journals made all reviewing double blind and as a result a significantly higher proportion of papers by female authors were published. A terrifying nugget of information, that. Do you publish in any peer-reviewed places, Bob? Thanks for your considered response and synpathy, Bob. It’s often a little tricky to raise these issues because it can sound like sour grapes; it’s usually those to whom rejection is a frequent visitor who complain about peer review. That doesn’t negate the serious criticisms of it, however.

Why not make all peer review double blind, for example. I read recently (urgh, where? SciAm?) that in a wee experiment, a couple of journals made all reviewing double blind and as a result a significantly higher proportion of papers by female authors were published. A terrifying nugget of information, that.

Do you publish in any peer-reviewed places, Bob?

]]> By: bobleckridge http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1192 bobleckridge Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:15:25 +0000 http://reallyhardsums.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/peer-review/#comment-1192 Sorry to hear about your rejection Phil but you're clearly taking it head on, picking yourself up and carrying on. I completely agree with you about the failings of peer review and your ideal of what peer review should be (but sadly never is). I also agree with your comments about scientists being able to make up their own minds. Of course they are, they don't need somebody else to filter everything for them. If peer review ever had a good side it was when publishing space was limited and people got most of their information from paper journals, so maybe it brought a kind of democracy to the editing process, but the net has changed all that, and it lets all of us make up our minds instead. I know from a friend who until recently worked in the scientific journals publishing industry that all journals are facing serious decline in the face of web publishing. In my field, medicine, the bigger worry is not so much peer review but drug company funding of research - that really distorts the science! Good quotes from Magueijo. Thank you Sorry to hear about your rejection Phil but you’re clearly taking it head on, picking yourself up and carrying on. I completely agree with you about the failings of peer review and your ideal of what peer review should be (but sadly never is). I also agree with your comments about scientists being able to make up their own minds. Of course they are, they don’t need somebody else to filter everything for them. If peer review ever had a good side it was when publishing space was limited and people got most of their information from paper journals, so maybe it brought a kind of democracy to the editing process, but the net has changed all that, and it lets all of us make up our minds instead. I know from a friend who until recently worked in the scientific journals publishing industry that all journals are facing serious decline in the face of web publishing.
In my field, medicine, the bigger worry is not so much peer review but drug company funding of research – that really distorts the science!
Good quotes from Magueijo. Thank you

]]>