 |
 |
Many (more) reviewers ???? - [panic on Roberto's face] Isn't real peer-review just a question of standing the test of time? A piece of work blatantly wrong will sooner or later be picked up by someone (although I acknowledge that wrong papers can have serious consequences on one's ability to get funding). Limitations on a piece of research due to whatever reason will be hopefully lessened by other authors or the next generation(s) of scientists. Overall, I don't think the current system is really that bad. Cheers Roberto On 10 Oct 2013, at 06:57, miguel <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > (Sorry if you get this twice. The first time as marked as junk by our email server. Well, it may be junk after all...) > > Hi Marco, > > Impact factor is the last refuge of the publishing system as it is. > Precisely because in this ocean of untrusted publications we tend to > believe that high impact factor journals deserve our respect. This is > more or less all right: among those who have investigated the issue some > are more pessimistic than others about the quality of papers published > in those journals. Yet, it is hard to believe that their papers are > generally worse than those of not-so-high impact factor journals. But > from a scientific point of view, taking into account the evolution of > research and publishing, the trust that we give to high impact journals > is, in my opinion, wishful thinking. > > Concerning peer-reviewing, I don't think that adding more opacity will > help. On the contrary. What I believe, but I don't have any proof of it, > is that peer-reviewing is useful only if it is more transparent, engages > in a real scientific discussion (understood as a conversation, not as an > exchange of messages separated by weeks) and is open to (many) more > reviewers. But that alone will not help if the way research is done does > not evolve at the same time. > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 18:56:32 -0700, Marco Lolicato wrote: >> Hi scientists, >> this interesting topic brought back to my mind a similar discussion I >> had with a colleague of mine and now I want to share it with you guys. >> As Vale already pointed out, the peer-review process seems to be far >> from an ideal system: there are many papers in which one of the author >> is himself the editor of the journal in which the paper is published; >> the impact factor of a journal is becoming the "only" way to judge the >> quality of a paper (and of the authors) [example: one of the European >> Commission grants has as mandatory eligibility criterium that the >> applicant should have at least one paper published in a "high IF >> journal"...I'm asking...Why?]. >> I have also the suspect (from my insignificant experience) that some >> papers are accepted in really high IF journals without a clear >> peer-review process, but basing the decision mostly on the authors >> listed in that paper. >> Anyway, for those reasons and more, I was wondering if maybe is >> nowadays needed to revisit the peer-review process. One thing that >> immediately came out was: the authors of a papers should be hidden to >> both the reviewers and the editors, so that paper will be judged only >> on the intrinsic quality and not from the names on it or from the >> country. >> >> I'm looking forward to see your opinion. >> >> >> Marco >> >> >> >> >> Il giorno 09/ott/2013, alle ore 15.00, Miguel Ortiz Lombardia ha scritto: >> >>> Hi denizens, >>> >>> Now that Biology has gone missing, at least in the programs of the >>> funding agencies in this part of the world, the reflections that I'm >>> going to expose concern at best that even smaller field of natural >>> philosophy that we euphemistically call, not without a twist of candour, >>> "biomedicine". At worst, they only concern the world whose limits are >>> the limits of my language. >>> >>> As I understand it, the main purpose of really existing peer-reviewing >>> is to act as a filter. By selecting those papers deemed publishable it >>> spares us the herculean task of reading every possible piece emanating >>> from our overheated brains. This actually reveals a big problem of >>> really existing research (with the caveat expressed in the first >>> paragraph). But I'm not going to venture into that problem: more clever >>> minds have drowned in its muddy waters. Back to the point, if the need >>> of publishing were not such a strong source of inspiration and we >>> researchers would feel the compelling necessity of publishing only when >>> we could write well-structured and thoughtful papers, full of useful >>> data and rich in new ideas and hypotheses, we could then read a >>> reasonable percentage of the papers concerning our fields of interest. >>> In that utopia, peer-reviewing could be a continuous, transparent and >>> open process that would involve a relevant part of the community. Not >>> likely to happen and probably for good: knowledge seems to progress by a >>> combination of slow accretion of small steps and sudden >>> (re)interpretations of those steps. >>> >>> But what is interesting to see in that utopian/dystopian possibility is >>> that really existing peer-reviewing suffers from a fundamental problem: >>> statistical significance. Because, what significance is to be deposited >>> in the opinions, whether reasonably argued or not (another thorny >>> Pandora box I won't dare to open), of two, three or at best four people >>> acting as editors or reviewers? Anonymous people in the latter case, to >>> complete the scene. >>> >>> In the tension between these requirements trust is suppose to build up >>> and give us a reasonable path to pursue our noble endeavours. In my >>> insignificant opinion, in the current state of matters, trust is >>> seriously broken. Too much pressure to publish, too many journals, too >>> much money to make from publishing, too restricted and opaque a >>> peer-reviewing system... As a corollary, my impression is that while >>> many of us suspect we live in a bubble, we all seem to tacitly expect >>> that we will not see it explode. A good friend of mine once offered me a >>> book about the Spanish Armada; no joke. Its title was "The confident >>> hope of a miracle". >>> >>> To rebuild trust we need, among other things, to rebuild our tools. And >>> we better do it before the next big bang. Research is not the only human >>> activity involving knowledge and its transmission, we could use some >>> curiosity beyond our noses. >>> >>> Vale. >>> >>> Miguel Ortiz Lombardía >>> >>> Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR7257) >>> CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université >>> Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France >>> Tel: +33(0) 491 82 86 44 >>> Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20 >>> mailto:[log in to unmask] >>> http://www.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia >>> >>> El 09/10/13 20:04, Navdeep Sidhu escribió: >>>> John Bohannon wrote about his experience writing "a computer program to generate hundreds of unique papers." Thought some of you might find it of interest: >>>> >>>> John Bohannon. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342 (Oct. 4, 2013) 60-65. >>>> DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 >>>> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Navdeep >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Navdeep Sidhu >>>> University of Goettingen >>>> --- >>>> > > -- > Miguel > > Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques (UMR7257) > CNRS, Aix-Marseille Université > Case 932, 163 Avenue de Luminy, 13288 Marseille cedex 9, France > Tel: +33(0) 491 82 55 93 > Fax: +33(0) 491 26 67 20 > e-mail: [log in to unmask] > Web: http://w2.afmb.univ-mrs.fr/Miguel-Ortiz-Lombardia Roberto A. Steiner Group Leader Randall Division of Cell and Molecular Biophysics King's College London [log in to unmask] Room 3.10A New Hunt's House Guy's Campus SE1 1UL London Phone 0044 20 78488216 Fax 0044 20 78486435