orris-assocs.demon.co.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Re: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall
> Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
>
> Sally,
>
> May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded
> heretics? I think the solut
: Pre-publication peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly
Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As
an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online.
As a reviewer I am fed up with u
peer review (was: Jeffrey Beall
Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List)
Sally,
May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded
heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of
pre-publication peer review (PPPR) and publish results in
Each further day of thinking makes me feel closer and closer to this view. As
an author, I just like when colleagues are happy with one of my texts online.
As a reviewer I am fed up with unreadable junk.
Let us burn together, Jan.
Laurent
Le 10 déc. 2013 à 15:36, Jan Velterop a écrit :
> Sal
Sally,
May I join you in the ranks of those who risk being pilloried or branded
heretics? I think the solution is clear. We should get rid of pre-publication
peer review (PPPR) and publish results in open repositories. PPPR is the one
thing that keeps the whole publishing system standing, and e
