Stevan: I understood that! I just wanted to add that peer review, in addition to quality control, has another function. As stated in my blog, I do have some gripes about peer review, but nothing that could not be addressed by tweaking the existing system. Anonymous peer review's main problem is that it may no longer fit current culture. If that is the case, it is probably doomed, whether or not it works... --Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eric, I wasn't burying peer review, I was praising it! And saying (for the > n-to-the-nth time that peer-review reform is independent of OA, and vice > versa -- though OA will no doubt help make peer review much quicker and > more efficient, whichever way it goes) -- Stevan > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Eric F. Van de Velde < > eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Stevan: >> Peer review is not just about maintaining quality. It is part of a >> process of getting new ideas accepted. A discovery adds to human knowledge >> only if it is accepted. Right now, anonymous peer review starts the process >> of accepting/rejecting research. >> >> It is certainly valid to question whether peer review remains the best >> approach and to propose/explore alternative mechanisms. But that debate is >> quite distinct from Open Access. The Open Access movement need not add ever >> more divisive goals to its charter. >> >> However, Open Access is a "shock to the system" that will reverberate for >> years to come. It would be naive to think the system will remain as is, >> except for Open Access. Open Access is the start of a process of change for >> the scholarly-communication system, not the end of one. >> >> A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog on peer review (Creating >> Knowledge). At the time, I did not announce it on this list as it was not >> directly tied to Open Access (except in the closing lines). If interested, >> here is the link: >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2015/01/creating-knowledge.html >> >> And here is a teaser: >> >> Every scholar is part wizard, part muggle. >> >> As wizards, scholars are lone geniuses in search of original insight. >> They question everything. They ignore conventional wisdom and tradition. >> They experiment. >> >> As muggles, scholars are subject to the normal rules of power and >> influence. >> >> Continue at: >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2015/01/creating-knowledge.html >> --Eric. >> >> >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com >> Twitter: @evdvelde >> E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Many physicists say — and some may even believe — that peer review does >>> not add much to their work, that they would do fine with just unrefereed >>> preprints, and that they only continue to submit to peer-reviewed journals >>> because they need to satisfy their promotion/evaluation committees. >>> >>> And some of them may even be right. Certainly the giants in the field >>> don’t benefit from peer review. They have no peers, and for them >>> peer-review just leads to regression on the mean. >>> >>> But that criterion does not scale to the whole field, nor to other >>> fields, and peer review continues to be needed to maintain quality >>> standards. That’s just the nature of human endeavor. >>> >>> And the quality vetting and tagging is needed before you risk investing >>> the time into reading, using and trying to build on work -- not after. >>> (That's why it's getting so hard to find referees, why they're taking so >>> long (and often not doing a conscientious enough job, especially for >>> journals whose quality standards are at or below the mean.) >>> >>> Open Access means freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not >>> freeing it from peer review... >>> >>> Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review. >>> <http://cogprints.org/1646/> *Nature* [online] (5 Nov. 1998), *Exploit >>> Interactive* 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B. (2004) (ed.) *Peer Review: A >>> Critical Inquiry*. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp. 235-242. >>> http://cogprints.org/1646/ >>> >>> Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal >>> <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265617/>. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, (Eds.) *The >>> Future of the Academic Journal.* Chandos. >>> http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265617/ >>> >>> Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of >>> Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed >>> <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/>. *D-Lib Magazine* 16 (7/8). >>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/ >>> >>> Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement >>> for the current outdated system? >>> <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/> >>> *LSE Impact Blog* 8/21 August 21 2014 >>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
