Monday, June 14, 2010
Peer review redux
According to an article in the highly reputable PLoS One "The results of our analysis suggest that reviewers agree on the disposition of manuscripts – accept or reject – at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance. Nevertheless, editors' decisions appear to be significantly influenced by reviewer recommendations."
Or, in layman's terms, peer review is total crap, and the UK give half a billion dollars to highly profitable firms on the basis of peer review, i.e. total crap .
IMO: The UK could economise but presumably will do so by starving pensioners and closing libraries rather than reducing payola to the Tories' pals, and to the logrolling University Vice Chancellors. I agree that there is some truth in that comment in the PLoS article - and journals like"Medical Hypotheses" also give us much pause for thought, for example. The PLoS article authors of course do tend to back off a little within their article. But UK Universities could save a lot of money in the long term by considering the article at length.
Or, in layman's terms, peer review is total crap, and the UK give half a billion dollars to highly profitable firms on the basis of peer review, i.e. total crap .
IMO: The UK could economise but presumably will do so by starving pensioners and closing libraries rather than reducing payola to the Tories' pals, and to the logrolling University Vice Chancellors. I agree that there is some truth in that comment in the PLoS article - and journals like"Medical Hypotheses" also give us much pause for thought, for example. The PLoS article authors of course do tend to back off a little within their article. But UK Universities could save a lot of money in the long term by considering the article at length.
# posted by uv : 4:52 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
