[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: First Monday article on OA
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: First Monday article on OA
- From: Mark Funk <mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:13:15 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I agree with David Groenwegen about the many potential problems with post-publication review for OA, which Joe Esposito espouses in his article at http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/esposito/ : "In a world of electronic networks, however, peer review can and should take place after publication. Such review can take place virtually in real time, so our patient remains safe; and the marginal cost of such publication (which essentially amounts to uploading the text to a Web server) approaches zero. Post-publication peer review does not require expensive and slow-moving infrastructure. It therefore assists authors in their goal of getting published quickly and potentially provides wider feedback from the broad community of scholars. Quackery that gets published will be recognized as such and dismissed rapidly." Why would post-publication peer review be any less expensive or slow-moving? Does moving the review process to after publication somehow make it cheaper and faster? Sure, you can have a *type* of post-publication peer review that is fast and cheap. Look at Amazon.com's customers reviews. It's fast, it's cheap, and it's woefully inadequate for science, particularly clinical medicine. "Real time" review to protect the patient? Current reviewers will often spend weeks going over the procedures and statistical methods of clinical research articles. (PLoS tries to have reviews done in 7 days, but realizes that sometimes more time is needed.) This is not "real time." Shortcuts to the review process for English literature may be OK, but I prefer my doctor to be practicing medicine that has been properly vetted, not waiting for review. I can't imagine any reputable Open Access journal actually putting articles on the web prior to review. It would only take a couple of articles exposed as quackery or fraud before that journal's reputation would be shot. -- Mark Funk Head, Collection Development Weill Cornell Medical Library 1300 York Avenue New York, NY 10021 212-746-6073 mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu
- Prev by Date: SwetsWise Title Bank Launched
- Next by Date: Duke University Press STM Initiative
- Previous by thread: Re: First Monday article on OA
- Next by thread: Re: First Monday article on OA
- Index(es):