RE: The religion of peer review

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

Jan says:" Talking about rituals, isn't it a ritual, too, to complain
about prices inc! reasing faster than library budgets? Nothing remotely
scientific about it. There would be a point if library budgets had
broadly stayed in line with research spending. But they haven't. Isn't
it an article of faith that the budgets "could not conceivably rise" in
line with the production of scientific literature?"

Response: Library expenditures for serials HAVE risen in line
with research spending. You are complaining about something else?

Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
phone 704 687-2825

________________________________

[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of JOHANNES
VELTEROP
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:19 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: The religion of peer review

To ask if peer-review works is probably asking the wrong
question. It's a ritual, not a scientific method. It's a cultural
expectation. Just like wearing a necktie is in certain circles,
and nobody asks whether they actually work. (They would, as a
noose.) And to expect peer-review to act as an almost infallible
filter is wholly unrealistic. If it is a filter of sorts, it is
one that helps journal editors to maintain their journals'
biases. If peer-review were a method of only ascertaining an
article's scientific validity, we would neither need, nor have,
so many journals. One in every discipline would suffice. But the
ritual reaffirms bias. The bias of 'quality', for instance, or
'relevance' (though the question could be asked to what,
exactly?). And why not? Just as bio-diversity is a good thing,
'publi-diversity' may be as well.

Talking about rituals, isn't it a ritual, too, to complain about
prices inc! reasing faster than library budgets? Nothing remotely
scientific about it. There would be a point if library budgets
had broadly stayed in line with research spending. But they
haven't. Isn't it an article of faith that the budgets "could not
conceivably rise" in line with the production of scientific
literature?

Open access publishing, in addition to all the other benefits it
has, also keeps the cost of scientific literature in line with
research spending.

Jan Velterop