> Just turning things over in the back of my mind. > Eric was pointing out that, without the peer review that goes with > publication in a prestigious journal, a paper isn't taken seriously. as > Robert points out, peer review offers at least some assurance that a paper > does not contain 'junk information'. Don't disagree on the merits of peer review. On the downside, though it can just end up as an example of GB Shaw's "all professions are conspiracies against the public" (or whatever he said).
It can get stupid: One card carrying reviewer wanted 'rejection unless rewritten' because in a low level piece on legal risks I had said something like 'you could get sued like Mrs Smith (Daily Mirror, 1966, etc.)" as it "was not a peer reviewed _reference_" ... what did she want the All England Law Reports (also not p-r)? > But, given that we don't get paid for reviewing, and reviewing standards > vary considerably across publications (so we can't quite be sure of those > assurances unless a particular journal is highly prestigious particularly > for its rigour), is there another way? > Citation indices aren't bad. (Or weren't till Google patented them ... ;-)> (Though hilarious junk science gets over-cited, if only to contradict it.) > On the question of publishing but not preaching to the converted, one > could see that some kind of peer review might help. > I'm thinking that specialised publishing from leaders in the field, but > pitching at the early-undergrad /bright-and-interested 6th former (in the > Uk - that's a 17 year old; not sure of equivalents elsewhere)/ New > Scientist reader would be of great benefit. Apart from anything else, it > would provide good introductory teaching material, open source. > > I know all this openness puts the wind up those whose business model > requires that information should be constrained (such as journals and > universities), but it could be used to drive up the level of debate. Is there still a level? I was recently asked to review an e-learning resource for undergrad biologists (more for the e-learning than content). I queried why science undergrad's need such a resource for what was first and second year college (11-13 y.o.) chemistry ... to be assured that that _was_ the level now. On your specific point: Reviews are excellent and under-published. IMHO all doctoral students should write and publish one in their early year(s) ... but I doubt if there are that many openings to publish them(?). So not disagreeing ... and your ideas are interesting, Peter. Just sceptical ... Regards, Michael > One > could see how discussion papers and erudite responses (which also need > some kind of review process) could be quite illuminating. It still needs > some kind of editorial function, I think, to keep up standards and to > minimise 'noise' > > In the area of 3-d sound and spatial hearing, I would think this list is > where one would look first > regards > > Dr Peter Lennox > > School of Technology, > Faculty of Arts, Design and Technology > University of Derby, UK > e: [email protected] > t: 01332 593155 _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list [email protected] https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
