Even if you remove the authors it is often easy to ascertain who they are by reading the paper and reference list.
Marco Lolicato <chimbio...@gmail.com> 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:miguel.ortiz-lombar...@afmb.univ-mrs.fr >> 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 >>> --- >>>
