Electronic Peer Review

Sean Eddy eddy at wol.wustl.edu
Fri Oct 27 16:00:52 EST 1995


In article <Pine.3.89.9510261157.A4425-0100000 at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA> berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) writes:
  >I suggest that the above idea of "viogrous peer review"
  >is quite detrimental. All you have to do is to check for
  >general relevance and post all submissions. The following
  >short article gives more explanations.

I think there's a reasonable case to be made for non-anonymous peer
review. 

But the idea of *not* peer-reviewing seems to me to be a sure recipe
for disaster. Look at the average content of unmoderated Usenet
scientific groups, for instance. I can just see the pseudoscientific
spams now...

In fact, I think abandoning peer review would have the opposite effect
of what you desire. I read non-reviewed preprints a lot -- but to
avoid the garbage, I only read preprints from authors I know and
trust. Seems to me, there's even more of an "old boy" network involved
in what preprints get read. (Mind you, I'm a computational biologist,
not a physicist -- I understand you physicists have a good preprint
distribution system going, but I don't know how it works.)

--
- Sean Eddy
- Dept. of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine
- eddy at genetics.wustl.edu




More information about the Bioforum mailing list