Comments on: Richard Smith: Twitter to replace peer review?

By: Manu

Manu — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:59:05 +0000

“Led to a scandal when there really was none”

Ahem – in what way was demonstrated corruption of the peer-review process by a small group of people with significant financial vested interest in maintaining the 'alarmist' status quo not really a scandal…?

“Peer-to-peer” review, with ALL data and methods out in the open for all to review and comment on is definitely the direction in which science should be moving – whatever your political views…

By: Abrooks

Abrooks — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:12:00 +0000

The fact that there are, until now, only 6 comments to your post (this being the seventh) underscores your point. (I also retweeted this link.)

I think there is simply too much institutional inertia to effectively leapfrog from the current peer-review by the very few then publish to a faster, cheaper and potentially more efficient approach of publishing a paper under, perhaps, a probationary period before it achieves the status of 'peer-reviewed' by the masses post publication.

Intriguing, all the same.

By: amcunningham

amcunningham — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:37:07 +0000

Last night I noticed a comment of yours on the Hilary Bekker editorial where you were remarking on the flurry of Rapid Responses! The BMJ does seem to be much more successful in garnering comments, but it also makes them more obvious. On other journals they feel hidden away. I've made my first comment on a PLOSone paper last night. But I still enjoy tweeting about it as well!

By: amcunningham

amcunningham — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:34:20 +0000

Recently I came across your comment on Hilary Bekker's editorial last autumn where you stated that people were using BMJ Rapid Responses! But it's true that commenting on journals is not nearly as common as one would expect.

By: Sunil Bhopal

Sunil Bhopal — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:46:51 +0000

Interesting happy-go-lucky blogpost!

In a recent BBC Horizon programme, James Delingpole, the Daily Telegraph journalist called for precisely the same thing, he called it peer-to-peer review.

Whilst it seems to have worked in your Science and Hwang Woo-suk cases, in the case Delingpole described - 'climategate' - it led to a scandal when there really was none.

Peer-review isn't perfect but sometimes 'peer-to-peer' review may be even less so, particularly when politics and ideology are part of the debate...

By: Liz Wager

Liz Wager — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:29:30 +0000

Interesting — maybe I'm about to be proved wrong (again!) … see http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2009/…/ for my 2009 thoughts on this!
Liz

By: Theophane Bukele

Theophane Bukele — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:56:35 +0000

This would be the best thing to avoid imprisonment of science by some wise. And many do not know how it works in this circle. Knowing that such scientific personality is often cited, one is tempted to quote him as to successfully publish an article. Some time ago, I prepared an innovative article for publication. This article was clearly in contradiction with the current view in the field. My first reader told me: “Do not say it particularly because it will not pass and peers will say: 'But who is he?”. It's very sad. Theophane Bukele.

By: Michael Power

Michael Power — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:54:30 +0000

In your paper "Classical peer review: an empty gun" you say:

"I recently debated peer review in front of around 80 people from the Association of Learned and Scholarly Publishers. Unsurprisingly, I was arguing against peer review. Nobody agreed with my position before my talk - and nobody agreed with me afterwards."

This reminds me of an observation made by John Maynard Keynes that I came across recently:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."