Re: [FRIAM] Homeostasis by Peer Review

[Russell Gonnering]

Peter- This is an interesting proposal.  Having served on the editorial board of a number of medical publications, I agree that the peer review process tends to preserve the status quo.  The standard for an established author from a "reputable institution" may be, at least unconsciously, different from that used for a neophyte.  I like sending the paper without the authors listed.  I'm not sure about listing the reviewers on the published paper. Russ   Russell S. Gonnering, MD, FACS, MMM, CPHQ rsgonneri...@mac.com On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Peter Lissaman wrote: Peer Review is indeed an excellent preserver of status quo.  For the AIAA (the main aerospace institution) the standard procedure is that the signed draft paper is submitted by editors to reviewers, who then send anonymous comments to the author.  Twenty years ago, as a Fellow of said august Institution, I  proposed simply reversing the process:  sending the paper anonymously to reviewers and then listing favorable reviewers on the published paper.  It was received with deafening silence.  Actually, the Royal Society does do something akin to this. Peter Lissaman,  Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 TEL: (505) 983-7728                        FAX: (505) 983-1694 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org