Comments on: Does peer review work?

By: Bernie Simon

Bernie Simon — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:28:44 +0000

Peer review makes sense when you’re trying to limit use of a scarce resource: journal space. Bits are (nearly) free. Put the articles online without peer review and let readers rate the articles. Use a reputation system (there are a few available for free) to filter out the stinkers.

By: autolycos

autolycos — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:27:33 +0000

I agree with you on many points here, DB. My question is around implementing some form of change. I’m curious if you think some sort of journal wiki–google it with the phrase “define: wiki”–would fit your bill.

A paper could be posted, a commenting time is opened, and people can comment freely. Similar to a blog, but slightly different. In many respects, current science works that way with journals, only much slower.

Chafe boldly. Perhaps we can come up–as a community–with a better solution.

By: MeetingsNet: Home to the Meetings Group Magazines

MeetingsNet: Home to the Meetings Group Magazines — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:45:45 +0000

[...] Great rant on peer review for journals on DB’s Medical Rants. I love this guy’s honesty. Here’s a snip: Much science creates controversy. Whenever there is controversy, people (for after all reviewers are people) take sides. We all know that when we submit an article, we run the risk of having the wrong reviewer. I suspect that I have been the wrong reviewer for some articles. [...]

By: WL

WL — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:21:05 +0000

I’ll second that!!!