Re: Article on peer review

[Velterop <velterop@gmail.com>]

"Sneer review" is already a thirty year old notion:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198106043042327

Plus ca change.

Jan Velterop


Joseph Esposito wrote:
> To clarify a matter of semantics:
>
> I use the term "post-publication peer review" to refer to comments
> made after a document has been made public.  If an author deposits a
> paper in a repository, where it can be discovered and read by fellow
> researchers, by my definition that constitutes publication.  (Some
> might call it "posting.")  There is a qualitative difference between
> such acts of publication and what we see when an established journal
> delivers an issue, but I'm not sure the language has made the
> differences clear.  Thus the rhetorical confusion between publishers
> (who see all instantiations of a document as competition, as I do) and
> open access advocates, who sometimes claim that depositing a paper in
> a repository is not publishing and thus not competition.
>
> However we want to argue these points, let's let the meaning of the
> terms be clear.
>
> The topic of unconventional peer review came up on another list
> recently.  One commenter coined the term "sneer review" for comments
> made on documents by people who have no expertise in the subject.  The
> same commenter termed such reviewers to be "sneers."
>
> I wish I had said that.
>
> Joe Esposito
>