Archive for the 'Peer review' category

Friday Sprog Blogging: peer review.

Apr 02 2010 Published by under Kids and science, Peer review

Unlike some of my dear readers, the elder Free-Ride offspring, upon reading yesterday's post, immediately recognized it as an April Fool's Day joke. (This recognition was accompanied by only the barest hint of a smile. A mother's fine, dry wit is, apparently, an acquired taste.)
Although that post was bogus, some of its content seemed worth discussing.
Dr. Free-Ride: Do you know what peer review is?
Elder offspring: No.
Dr. Free-Ride: Do you have a guess? Do you know what a "peer" is?

Continue Reading »

6 responses so far

How do researchers perceive peer review?

Apr 01 2010 Published by under Peer review, Tribe of Science

ResearchBlogging.orgYou don't have to look far to find mutterings about the peer review system, especially about the ways in which anonymous reviewers might hold up your paper or harm your career. On the other hand, there are plenty of champions of the status quo who argue that anonymous peer review is the essential mechanism by which reports of scientific findings are certified as scientific knowledge.
So how do scientists feel about anonymous peer review? A 2008 paper in Science and Engineering Ethics by David B. Resnik, Christina Guiterrez-Ford, and Shyamal Peddada, titled "Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study", attempts to get a preliminary handle on that question. They write:

Continue Reading »

13 responses so far

What's the point of peer review?

Once again, I'm going to "get meta" on that recent paper on blogs as a channel of scientific communication I mentioned in my last post. Here, the larger question I'd like to consider is how peer review -- the back and forth between authors and reviewers, mediated (and perhaps even refereed by) journal editors -- does, could, and perhaps should play out.
Prefacing his post about the paper, Bora writes:

First, let me get the Conflict Of Interest out of the way. I am on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Science Communication. I helped the journal find reviewers for this particular manuscript. And I have reviewed it myself. Wanting to see this journal be the best it can be, I was somewhat dismayed that the paper was published despite not being revised in any way that reflects a response to any of my criticisms I voiced in my review.

Bora's post, in other words, drew heavily on comments he wrote for the author of the paper to consider (and, presumably, to take into account in her revision of the manuscript) before it was published.
Since, as it turns out, the author didn't make revisions addressing Bora's criticisms that ended up in the published version of the paper, Bora went ahead and made those criticisms part of the (now public) discussion of the published paper. He still endorses those criticisms, so he chooses to share them with the larger audience the paper has now that it has been published.

Continue Reading »

17 responses so far