Re: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

["B.G. Sloan" <bgsloan2@yahoo.com>]

I'm sure that all the good folks (editors, reviewers, etc.) who
have labored many hours in a sincere attempt to support the peer
review process will gladly accept Mr. Krichel's assessment that
their efforts have been "useless".  :-)

Mr. Krichel's reply to my question seems to be "I don't have to
prove I'm right...you have to prove I'm wrong." As he says, he
doesn't need to study the empirical evidence that is published in
those pesky peer-reviewed journals :-)

Does Mr. Krichel believe we would be better off in a world
without the checks and balances of peer review? What does he
suggest to replace peer review?

Sure, peer review is far from perfect, and there is ample
anecdotal evidence that it can be flawed. That doesn't prove that
peer review is "useless".

Bernie Sloan


--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Thomas Krichel <krichel@openlib.org> wrote:

> From: Thomas Krichel <krichel@openlib.org>
> Subject: Re: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 5:58 PM
> B.G. Sloan writes
>
>> Thomas Krichel writes: "...we all know that peer review is a
>> vague concept to the point of being useless."
>>
>> Really? I don't mean to sound naive or skeptical. Can Thomas
>> Krichel point us to some empirical studies that show peer
>> review is useless?
>
> Can B.G. Sloan point us to some empirical studies that measure
> the extend of usefulness of peer review?
>
> I have not studied the empirical evidence that is formally
> published. I have seen enough errors in peer reviewed papers
> personally but I can't spend my time elaborating here where
> these errors are. I don't think there is a need to do this.
> "Peer reviewed" means some presumed peers have reviewed the
> paper. The concept of a "peer" is vague. The concept of a
> "review" is vague. The combination of two vague concepts is
> even more vague...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Krichel
> http://openlib.org/home/krichel