gives a typically thoughtful and erudite review of peer review. What he ends up with is not so different from 's proposal, except for the concern with the power politics of open reviewing, which is a concern I have also heard from others, especially those whose fledgling careers could be harmed by vindictive senior authors.
If Peer Review Did Not Exist, We Would Have to Invent Something Very Like It to Serve Highly Similar Ends
Attention conservation notice: 1400 words on a friend's proposal to do away with peer review, written many weeks ago when there was actually some debate about this. Larry is writing about peer review (again), this time to advocate "A World Without Referees". Every scientist, of course, has day-dreamed about this, in a first-lets-kill-all-the-lawyers way, but Larry is serious, so let's treat this seriously. I'm not going to summarize his argument...
2 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- Chopin, Gelman, Mengersen, and Robert have an arxiv paper called "In praise of the referee". I've only just skimmed it, but I think the reform suggestions will sound familiar; I'm writing to point out two passages, for fun:
"Just as backyard players aspire to higher levels of play, (true) scientists want to be reviewed. We want our work to be high quality and accepted by our peers, and we accept refereeing—and journals—as part of this evaluation excellence".
Also, taken from a sports context, "Damn referees, I'll miss them less than anybody", attributed to Abe Lemons.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4304v1.pdfMay 23, 2012
Add a comment...