Zen Faulkes
Here's my stab at trying to show different flavours of peer review: http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-varieties-of-peer-review...
Here's my stab at trying to show different flavours of peer review: http://neurodojo.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-varieties-of-peer-review...
Let me apologize for my inability to show complexity in this graph. There is so much smear that I hesitated trying to make the graph at all. The graph is meant as a starting point, not a final word…
I don't follow why the points above 0 on the y-axis are distinct (except for citations). The timing and rigour are all very similar.
Nice review of the current state of post-publication peer review.One comment regarding this passage:Many like the idea of central repositories and would love to see all comments about a paper…
"Moderated by experts" sounds mightily similar to "peer review". But actually it's nothing like it. Extremely light-touch moderation to keep the nutters out, but no more...
@ZF: "Moderated by experts" sounds mightily similar to "peer review". "It does, indeed. There's a *lot* of, ah, inertia in the current biomedical and clinical publishing system, esp...
This is going to vary just a tad by field. Physics people do not have to worry about ethics in clinical trials, for example. Now, the local IRB *should* do such "ethics checks"; but some nations have…
arXiv wesbite notes, "Submissions are reviewed by expert moderators to verify that they are topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication (a…
Aggregating comments to articles in a central repository will only be as comprehensive and useful as the original database. It's great for fields that have comprehensive article databases, but not…
"But arXiv does not seem to be the the free-for-all that it is sometimes portrayed as."I still don't think you can compare what happens on the ArXiv to pre-publication peer review...
"Prepublication peer review is arguably the defining characteristic of academic writing."I think this is no longer true for most of physics...
Agreed! I am trying to figure out how to illustrate the continuum from "sanity check" (arXiv) to "reviewed for competence" (PLOS ONE, PeerJ) to "reviewed for perceived importance and impact" (Science…
I reckoned that was the difference. We can certainly talk about how intense and thorough peer review can or should be, how it differs in different fields, and the continuum from "moderated" to "peer…
This is a fundamental discussion today, in my opinion. I have some friends from physics and they tell me how publishing and peer review are more advanced in their fields...
"Physics people do not have to worry about ethics in clinical trials, for example."I don't see how this would interfere with the use of preprint servers...
Please note that today we have this new system Biorxiv. We do not need to reflect ourselves on physics also for this, and one could try out the new platform...
Aggregating comments to articles in a central repository will only be as comprehensive and useful as the original database.Allowing users to add content to the database would solve that problem...