Re: The religion of peer review

[Karl Bridges <Karl.Bridges@uvm.edu>]

The real problem isn't the religion of peer review.  It's the 
religion of libraries feeling they have to buy expensive 
subscriptions solely because Eminent Professor X of their school 
publishes in that journal. OR How many of us have heard, for 
example, the plea of a department (usually with no supporting 
documents) "You must take journal X because my discipline 
requires it for us to be accredited." ? The problem isn't really 
peer-review (or even the greed of the publishing combines), but 
our own selfishness in insisting that our institutions just have 
to have journals -- even when our own data shows the journals 
won't be used.

Quoting Libby Feil <l.feil@sjcpl.org>:

> I've seen much discussion of this topic recently, in part because of
> the stem cell research debacle, but I have to agree that peer review
> usually does "work."  I think that the real problem is that many
> people do not understand what peer review is meant to accomplish.  It
> is not a defense against outright fraud, because peer reviewers read
> journal articles, not researchers' notebooks. However, what it can do
> and usually in fact does quite well is point out errors in results or
> methodologies, weaknesses in arguments, and unwarranted conclusions.
> As someone who has worked in a journal's editorial office and also
> has submitted work for peer review, I can attest personally to the
> usefulness and thoroughness of most peer review. In my view, this
> great gift of unpaid labor is a great service to the research
> community.
>
> Elizabeth "Libby" Feil
>
> Reference Librarian and Assistant Manager
> Reference & Information Services Department
> St. Joseph County Public Library
> 304 So. Main Street
> South Bend, IN  46601
>
> 574-235-4181
> l.feil@sjcpl.org
> AIM:  sjcpllibby
> http://www.libraryforlife.org/localhistory
>
>
> > From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> > Subject: Re: The religion of peer review
> > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:50:12 EST
> >
> > Peer review is just qualified specialists vetting the work of
> > their fellow-specialists before further specialists risk the time
> > and effort of trying to build on it. Sometimes it's about
> > protecting the public from health risk.
> >
> > A religion - Anyone have a better idea? No vetting? Unqualified
> > vetting? Opinion polls? Pot luck?
> >
> > No one who has had to sit for a quarter century in a journal
> > editorial office dealing with raw, unfiltered submissions has any
> > doubt about the value, indeed the necessity, of qualified,
> > answerable vetting, to protect researchers time and effort; but
> > armchair speculation about it will no doubt proceed apace...
> --


--
Karl Bridges
Associate Professor
Information and Instruction Services
Bailey Howe Library
University of Vermont
538 Main St.
Burlington, VT  05405
802-656-8132
karl.bridges@uvm.edu <mailto:karl.bridges@uvm.edu>

Attachment: bin00000.bin
Description: PGP Public Key