Folks --
I would like to see and participate in a discussion of peer review,
including concepts such as:
What is the minimal obligation of any peer reviewer for any scientific
publication?
For instance -- must the peer reviewer read all the reference materials?
How much time and effort should go into any peer review?
What should be the ultimate and subultimate goals of the reviewer?
For instance, is the overall objective of the paper under review subject
to question?
Is peer review more superficial and mostly a spell-checking and grammar
review excercise?
On what basis should peer reviewers be chosen -- species expertise,
technical application of scientific method?
Does reviewer acquaintance, friendship, collaboration with author(s)
constitute bias?
How should obvious errors in peer review after publication be dealt with?
These are questions that enter my mind after perceiving many failures in
peer review while reading the scientific literature over the years. I
wonder if others have noticed the same thing, if there are standards that
are being violated, and if there is need for some sort of action to improve
the process.
Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtextlinkjuly07
