I am strongly in favor of #2 rather than #1. Full disclosure will tend to make reviewers nicer, but this is not always a good thing. I believe that complete anonymity is the way to go.
Jane Shevtsov On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Aaron T. Dossey <[email protected]> wrote: > These are some good ideas - we DEFINITELY need more INDEPENDENT research > jobs in science - this is a HUGE problem. I would start there before > deciding to reduce the number of PhD's earned. The problems science solves > will not go away, in general, so we will always need more independent > thinkers employed to solve them. > > A couple of ideas for peer review: > > 1) make the reviewers names available: ie: not anonymous. > 2) make the author(s) names anonymous. Too many papers get published and > grants get funded because of WHO is on the author/PI line rather than the > content of those documents. > > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > > > > > > (Candan Soykan) wrote: >> >> I believe that the problem is much broader than individuals "cheating" the >> peer review system. Rather, why has the number of manuscripts increased >> so >> dramatically? Many bemoan the increasing quantity and decreasing quality >> of >> papers these days, and yet few are willing to discuss the root cause - >> competition for jobs/grants. So long as there are too many individuals >> vying for too few jobs/research dollars, the incentive will be to publish >> often, even if the quality of the work is low (i.e., satisfy the search >> committees and reviewers who value quantity over quality). >> >> There are several ways to address this issue (and I doubt that my list is >> exhaustive): >> >> 1) Increase the number of jobs/grants for ecologists; >> 2) Decrease the number of ecologist we train so as not to exceed the >> number >> of jobs/grants that are available; >> or >> 3) Change the way we evaluate candidates to better reflect the quality of >> the work they have done, rather then just reward output per se. >> >> In my opinion, option #1 is largely out of the hands of researchers; >> moreover, if the amount of funding did increase, there is always the risk >> that the number of ecologist we train would as well, leading to no net >> gain. >> I have seen certain individuals refrain from taking students, fulfilling >> the second option above, but getting a whole community of ecologists to do >> it seems problematic (who would decide how many students each researcher >> can >> train?). The third option seems the most realistic, but will require a >> shift in the way we evaluate research productivity. Moreover, it brings >> with it risks as well - counting pubs is, at the very least, objective, >> whereas who is to evaluate the quality of the work done by an applicant? >> >> I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this issue ... >> >> Candan Soykan >> [email protected] >> > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars." --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
