More Peer Review - More Garbage
Mon Oct 9 08:01:31 EST 1995
berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote:
>This is not the point. Nothing works always. The problem
>is that (anonymous) peer review has a CONSISTENT negative
>bias - suppression of originality and coercion to safe
>science. Read the literature before making arbitray claims.
Sorry, but you will find a lot of people who would say their
papers are improved by going through the peer review process.
There are problems getting really new/difficult-to-understand
things into some general scientific journals. But this
is not much to do with the peer review process - rather it's a lot
to do with a lack of understanding on the part of the (non-peer)
editorial teams. This is not an important problem though - although
it makes these journals somewhat more mediocre than they perhaps should be.
Obviously, if the peer review process is not anonymous, the referees
won't feel able to give their true opinions in many cases.
| ,_ o Simon M. Brocklehurst,
| / //\, Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences, Department of Biochemistry,
| \>> | University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| \\, E-mail: smb at bioch.ox.ac.uk | WWW: http://www.ocms.ox.ac.uk/~smb/
More information about the Bioforum