On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review. > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as > infoboxes and other bells and whistles. And those peer review systems have lots and lots of problems as well as upsides. Lots of people *are* trying to reinvent peer review, including some very respected scientists.* As an academic science librarian, I can attest to there being widespread and currently ongoing debates about how to review scientific knowledge, whether traditional peer review is sufficient, and how to improve it. The current system for scientific research is often opaque, messy, prone to failure and doesn't always support innovation, and lots of smart people are thinking about it. Erik: aha! I'd forgotten about those case studies, thanks! -- phoebe * http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
