Che ne dite di questa?
Io non sono neppura sicura di aver capito bene il meccanismo proposto
Correspondence
Nature 439, 782 (16 February 2006) | doi:10.1038/439782c
Peer review could be improved by market forces
Klaus Jaffe1
1. Laboratorio de Comportamiento, Universidad Simön Bolívar, Apartado
89000,
Caracas 1080, Venezuela
Sir:
Although peer review seems the best system for quality control of scientific
publications and grant proposals ("Three cheers for peers" Nature 439, 118;
2006), we
might try to improve it. Market forces are known to optimize complex systems
where
multiple players have conflicting interests. Economic principles and internet
technology could be applied to a peer-review system in the following way.
First, a
central digital repository receives a paper for a fee 'x'. Potential referees
then bid to
review the paper, and, if approved by the author, receive a fee 'y<x'. Payments
are
made at the end of each month, allowing for exchanges where an author pays by
reviewing other papers.
Referees who can recommend an appropriate journal for the paper and provide the
required reference are given due credit and might eventually raise their fee.
Authors
wanting additional improvements to their work might also pay a higher fee.
Soon, an active exchange could take off where referees quote their position in
the
peer-market as eagerly as authors quote their citation impact. This system
could
diminish the workload of referees, by reducing the need to review the same
paper for
different journals. Eventually this system might be run as an independent
peer-review
exchange for a profit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Buona navigazione da http://www.ecorete.it
free-internet eco-solidale: navigando aiuti i piu' deboli!
--
www.e-laser.org
[email protected]
