Re: Article on peer review

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

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

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Ken Masters <kmasters@ithealthed.com> wrot=
e:
> Hi All
>
> Thanks for the article which raises a host of interesting issues.
> (Although I'm not sure that your description of "post-publication
> peer review" is entirely accurate - in this instance, the
> "journal posted online four essays not yet accepted for
> publication" so the web-based review was performed prior to
> publication.)
>
> I'm sure we all know most of the problems with standard
> peer-review: in the back of my mind is the fear caused by the
> fact that the peer-review is done by a non-random sample of 3-5
> people; hardly a convincing basis on which to determine overall
> quality. =C2=A0Especially, if the paper pushes the limits, or
> questions a practice that one of the reviewers holds dear.
>
> The model described in the paper does have a great advantage, I
> think. Not only increasing the quality of the paper, but having
> to post comments publicly, and not anonymously, might result in
> increasing the quality of the reviewers' comments. =C2=A0For example,
> I'm sure we've all seen inane general review comments like "Does
> not meet scientific standards" with no further details provided.
> Or the balancing act one treads when one reviewer insists that
> more detail is required in one section, and a second reviewer
> complains that the same section is far too detailed. =C2=A0Or when
> reviewers themselves don't know the referencing style of the
> journal, and insist that changes be made. =C2=A0My favourite is "I
> don't understand this" with no further explanation - to which,
> under normal circumstance, the response might be "well, perhaps
> you should get to know the subject area more thoroughly."
> Instead the author has to water down the explanation so that it
> may be understood by a high school student - and then weather the
> storm of complaints when the finished article is criticised for
> being laborious and over-simplistic. =C2=A0(Yes, one can defend, but
> defences always have to be so delicate for fear of upsetting
> reviewers' egos, that sometimes it's just not worth it). =C2=A0Or when
> reviewers seem to be using the opportunity to display their own
> knowledge, rather than to comment on a paper with a view to
> getting a quality publication.
>
> On the other hand, it is possible that some of these problems
> with standard peer-review would be exacerbated if there were 40,
> 50, 100? peoples' comments that would have to be taken into
> account by the authors before the paper could be published.
>
> One only has to look at the number of online comments generated
> by articles in journals like the BMJ - if the authors had to
> address all of these _before_ publication, would they have
> bothered? =C2=A0(And then there are the inevitable "Me too's"
> (disguised as new insightful inputs), one-upmanship, or the
> bun-fights that start between commentators while the authors wait
> patiently).
>
> But, in spite of my listing some complaints about peer-review, it
> still works, mostly. =C2=A0Perhaps, the current system (such as that
> by the BMJ), peer-review by a small group, and then allowing
> readers' comments _after_ publication (to extend research and
> debate) is more viable. =C2=A0(I think, closer to what Joe calls
> "post-publication peer review.") =C2=A0Not perfect, I'll warrant, but
> it strikes the balance between getting a wide range of comments
> without delaying publication. =C2=A0Of course, to be really effective,
> the article would have to be open access, but that is a personal
> prejudice, and a fight I can't have today :-).
>
> Regards
>
> Ken
>
> Dr. Ken Masters
> Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
> Medical Education Unit
> College of Medicine & Health Sciences
> Sultan Qaboos University
> Sultanate of Oman
> E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
>
>
---2071850956-1125415002-1282876857=:5209--