After Peer Review, What is the purpose of this blog?
2007-04-10: So, what is the purpose of this blog?
Through my work in research, I spend quit a bit of time reading scientific publication which have been "peer reviewed". As I also participate in reviewing other scientist's work and articles, I know that I can miss things and, potentially, poor quality work may slip into scientific journals. The result is occasional miss statements that may or may not have impact on the conclusions of the published paper. Many of these do not have long term consequences but some do. Even the minor ones should be corrected as a new researcher may not have the experience to know what is correct or not. Therefore, my main purpose is to give me an outlet where I can post errors or miss statements (or just bad protocol) as I run across them.
Eventually, I believe that scientific journals will not be printed but will only be an organization that will peer review scientific papers. As a researcher, you would send an article to this 'journal' and they would review it. If it passed peer review, they would give you a 'peer reviewed accepted ID number' which you would place on the electronic document. That would be it. The next step would be to have a 'WIKI' or blog type interface where people can point out potential inconsistencies or confusion in an article.
UPDATE: 2007-04-11
For those not aware of how the peer review process works, I would suggest you read this. When I participate in a review, there are usually 2 other reviewers. It is likely that most errors or miscues that are allowed through the process are because of lack of time or effort on the reviewers part or lack of detailed expertise. I believe that most errors that make it through the process are inadvertent. Nevertheless, they should be pointed out. That is what this blog is for.
General peer review discussions are happening all over, check out this debate in Nature (i.e. the great and spacious scientific press release journal... real work is published in the regular journals-- stay tuned for an upcoming post about Nature's gaffe in voice research peer review).
Through my work in research, I spend quit a bit of time reading scientific publication which have been "peer reviewed". As I also participate in reviewing other scientist's work and articles, I know that I can miss things and, potentially, poor quality work may slip into scientific journals. The result is occasional miss statements that may or may not have impact on the conclusions of the published paper. Many of these do not have long term consequences but some do. Even the minor ones should be corrected as a new researcher may not have the experience to know what is correct or not. Therefore, my main purpose is to give me an outlet where I can post errors or miss statements (or just bad protocol) as I run across them.
Eventually, I believe that scientific journals will not be printed but will only be an organization that will peer review scientific papers. As a researcher, you would send an article to this 'journal' and they would review it. If it passed peer review, they would give you a 'peer reviewed accepted ID number' which you would place on the electronic document. That would be it. The next step would be to have a 'WIKI' or blog type interface where people can point out potential inconsistencies or confusion in an article.
UPDATE: 2007-04-11
For those not aware of how the peer review process works, I would suggest you read this. When I participate in a review, there are usually 2 other reviewers. It is likely that most errors or miscues that are allowed through the process are because of lack of time or effort on the reviewers part or lack of detailed expertise. I believe that most errors that make it through the process are inadvertent. Nevertheless, they should be pointed out. That is what this blog is for.
General peer review discussions are happening all over, check out this debate in Nature (i.e. the great and spacious scientific press release journal... real work is published in the regular journals-- stay tuned for an upcoming post about Nature's gaffe in voice research peer review).
Labels: purpose
posted by Which_Larynx_Said_What? at
1:02 PM
1 Comments:
Still waiting on "Nature's gaffe in voice research peer review".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home