On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:48:54AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Russell Standish wrote circa 10-12-04 02:31 PM: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 10:18:26AM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > >> > >> to change, etc. So, they really do have to commit to work like this. > >> > > > > No scientist will do peer review for the sake of paying bills. > > Sorry, that was not my implication. I _tried_ to imply that scientists > do peer reviews as a part of their profession, not out of simple > curiosity, regardless how intense that curiosity. It takes relatively > little work to subscribe to a bunch of journals and read whatever you > want to read. It takes a great deal of work to actually review > articles, even if it's merely your intention to be catty or negative. > > So what I intended to say was that scientists review articles because it > is part of their role as a professional, not because they get paid to do > it. They must commit to the work as a part of their profession. > > A good side benefit is that it forces you to learn things your natural > curiosity would not have lead you to! >
What you write is a good description of how it ought to be. Sadly, it is not a description of how it is. Peer review works best when done by scientists who care about the science, and who know that claims need to be tested, queried and falsified where appropriate. As an editor, I know what it is like to have to conjole reviewers into getting their reviews done. There is usually no recognition for the peer review process, and it takes away from those activities that generate recognition (getting grants seems to take the cake :). And even when recognition is given, too often peer reviewers see it as a way of suppressing competition, and the reviews are rubbish. As both an author and a reviewer, I see the value in the system when performed properly. I'm asked to perform half a dozen reviews a year, which seems right, as I usually get out a couple of publications per year. I'm little biased towards acceptance - if I can't actually find anything wrong with a paper, I'm inclined to accept it, regardless of whether I subjectively agree with the result. We shouldn't be seen as the gatekeepers of what is considered scientific knowledge, but we are responsible for improving what is published where possible. It might be useful to publish reviewers comments alongside more controversial papers - I've only really seen this happen with Interjournal though. But then, I don't receive any financial reward from science - my academic affiliation is "visiting", and my last contract involving publishable research ended 2.5 years ago. Science, for me, is a hobby. I don't have time to play the "publications game" - doing the research is what it is all about, and I really appreciate candid reviews of my work, because it makes the research better. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
