Re: Article on peer review

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Jan,

I was referring to the phrase, not the concept.  Did you in fact find
an ancient reference to the phrase "sneer review"?

Joe

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Velterop <velterop@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "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.") =C2=A0There is a qualitative difference betwee=
n
>> 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. =C2=A0One commenter coined the term "sneer review" for comment=
s
>> made on documents by people who have no expertise in the subject. =C2=A0=
The
>> same commenter termed such reviewers to be "sneers."
>>
>> I wish I had said that.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>
>
---2071850956-2065629614-1283217447=:14427--