This elegant new system is frightening in at least two ways. First, whatever the horrors of the peer review system, at least the intent is that we publish papers based on their scientific worth. Under this brave new system, papers must also come from authors who have reviewed enough. This is no longer science but social engineering. Maybe we should throw in party membership?
As a practical matter, I know a number of brilliant folks who should not be allowed to referee, especially for first-time authors, if at all. They are to reviewing what Sherman was to Georgia. Should they not be allowed to publish or do we sacrifice young authors for the good of science? Second, this system would have editors deciding if reviews are bad and withholding credits for reviewers. Based on what criteria? Or are we to have reviewers review the reviews? I would give editors more credit in the process than most people are prepared to. They can tell a bad review or an unfair one. They have their stable of good reviewers who they cultivate. It is an art and some editors are better than others, but let's not create something worse than the problem. David Duffy University of Hawaii Manoa ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fixing peer review - elegant new proposal and petition - ideas To: [email protected] > Ecolog: > > I was initially inclined to agree with Shevtsov, then I got to > thinkin'--complete anonymity for reviewers provides a shroud > that encourages > rudeness and back-stabbing, while the spotlight need not > discourage > frankness from the very best in the field. It's high-time that > mere > political correctness and other China-doll mentalities got > tossed into the > dustbin, or at most reserved for the infantile. Honesty can't be > mean; > misrepresentation always is. One learns from the former, and > must learn to > ignore the latter. A good review should stand as strongly as a > reputation-maker as a good paper, and upon publication the > author's name > also will be on the block for honest criticism by the entire > field and > world. Subsequent communications (which in these broadband days > all should > be published) should ferret out any sleight-of-hand. > > As to Ph.D's, the more the better. Academia has been a > restrictive guild for > far too long. In the Age of the Internet, despite (and in part > because of) > the flood of misinformation out there, the opportunity exists > for truly > advancing the quality of education in and out of academia and > for raising > the standards for such appellations, discouraging their purchase > and > automatic dispensing by institutions of both dubious and earned > distinction. > Certificates alone are losing their powers of intimidation, and > the sooner > those displaying them will have to perform accordingly, the > better. The BS > component in the Ph.D. has produced inflation and devaluation, > and the more > quickly it can be expelled, the sooner the actual merit of the > work will > displace publicity as the standard by which real excellence (not > to mention > elegance) is measured. > > Independent thinkers and honest toilers are even more in need > today, as the > world seems to continue to delude itself that science and other > intellectual > work is nothing more than yet another buzz-phrase with which to > "market" the > insubstantial--to put it politely. > > No, Jane, while I understand your point and agree that if one of > the two > must be bargained away to the devil, we will at least be stuck > with only a > half a bowl of pottage--certainly a significant improvement over > the present > mess. But after all, we all put our names on these posts, and > must live with > them as long as the archives last, so why shouldn't those of > reviewers be > revealed? Those of the authors will be upon publication, but if > a too-eager > author is discouraged by a good reviewer from making a fool of > him/herself, > that would be the noblest possible use of and for the peer > review process, > would it not? I suspect that such a policy and process would > quickly improve > the quality of submissions. Time was, citations were more > important than > publications lists, no? > > Looking forward to The Reformation in any form, I remain, > > Yr. Ob't. Sv't., > WT > > PS: Has anyone asked the reviewers (anonymously, of course) just > why they do > and don't do reviews? Both the anecdotes and their analysis > might be > revealing. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jane Shevtsov" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:38 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fixing peer review - elegant new > proposal and > petition - ideas > > > 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 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3021 - Release Date: > 07/22/10 > 06:36:00
