There is tremendous interest in new publication models these days. In psychology, one of the big champions is Bjoern Brembs (another very active blogger fairly early in his career).
There is also increased general awareness in psychology of the negative consequences of our current system. Sure, there have been complaints for decades, but always at the fringes. This year saw the first full-issue treatment of the problem in a top 10 journal, and the implications of that level of coverage are still emerging. Incidentally ;- ) I cover that and some of psychology's other current problems in this year's edition of Holiday Special: A Year of Scandals in Psychology . -------- Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Roberts" <[email protected]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:47:50 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "Academics" and other Stereotypes The peer review process itself is flawed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ >From the article: "Slow and expensive" "Inconsistent" "Bias" "Abuse of peer review" --Doug On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Marcus G. Daniels < [email protected] > wrote: On 1/19/13 10:24 PM, Steve Smith wrote: <blockquote> Not to fan any flames, but I am curious about the stereotypes we all carry... "Academic" being the current one at issue... Peer review is the mechanism for determining quality work in academia. Researchers that can get their work past peer review get jobs, and others do not. A common way for junior people to get work through peer review is to have senior researcher (typically their mentor and boss) guide the process. The senior researchers do this for their own benefit, becoming senior authors on the papers, and in this way they accumulate an impressive publication record and prominence and for a good bang for the buck. At the end of the day, in certain academic cliques, one will find that peer review means that a few powerful people see that it is in their interest to get papers published. This is not to say that the papers are wrong, or haven't been reviewed, but they may not be particularly innovative. It's an economics based on reputation and professional networking amongst the Players, and it depends on having a pipeline of junior people of various investment to do the work. The idea of taking mailing list discussions and converting it into a publication has a similar smell. Instead of having students do the work, there's the brainstorming, analysis, argumentation of the community as an energy source. It just needs to be refined.. where the `refinement' is presented as the crucial contribution of the grown-ups. I could go on, but it gets more cynical from here on out.. Marcus ============================== ============================== FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/ listinfo/friam_redfish.com </blockquote> -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
