2013-10-21

Peer Review — current developments

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Sian Harris has made some interesting comments about current trends in scholarly publishing, including observations of what is happening to peer-review.

On peer-review (my bolding) one of the developments noted is:

Peer review is another interesting trend to watch. Different journals take different approaches to this. One trend is from blind to open peer review, where authors and reviewers know each other’s identity. Another topic for discussion is whether the lion’s share of peer review should go on pre-publication or post-publication. The journal PLOS One has an interesting approach to this, of deliberately only assessing papers for things like originality, accuracy and ethics but not making a judgement on how interesting the research is before publication. The discussion of the value of the research goes on afterwards.

There’s a related article, New Approach to Peer Review.

(Not that any of this is necessary for the Humanities, according to Larry Hurtado. Everything is just fine there. It’s only where those scientists have the ability to fabricate data that we find any problems, according to his ostrich perspective.)

 

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)



If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!


One thought on “Peer Review — current developments”

  1. “Science is in bad shape”
    “There are two pieces in the latest Economist that are must-reads not just for scientists, but for science-friendly laypeople. Both paint a dire picture of how credible scientific claims are, and how weak our system is for adjudicating them before publication. One piece is called “How science goes wrong“; the other is “Trouble at the lab.” Both are free online, and both, as is the custom with The Economist, are written anonymously.”

    source:
    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/science-is-in-bad-shape/

    I guess these scientist will have to adopt the pristine and infallible methods of theologians and NT scholars – the likes of McGrath and Hurtado comes to mind.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.