Weekly roundup
| 28 July, 2010 | Eleanor Howell |
4
|
|
As regular readers of this blog will know, Richard Grant is away for the next couple of weeks so I
|
|
previous post4 thoughts on “Weekly roundup”
Legacy comments are closed.
User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the post under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks.
Click here to post comment and indicate that you accept the Commenting Terms and Conditions.
“and the Scholarly Kitchen blog posted a lengthy piece questioning peer review and its validity when quantifying research performance.”
To clarify, this piece was about the merits of post-publication review focusing on several evaluations of F1000 over the years, not the merits of peer-review as you quote above, see:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/07/14/post-publication-review/
The owners of F1000 (or its sister companies) are welcome to respond to the blog piece. To date, only Matt Cockerill from BioMed Central has done so.
Richard Grant repsonded approximately 2 weeks ago on our blog here: http://blog.the-scientist.com/2010/07/14/weekly-roundup-3/.
Peer review and impact factor become more complex when talking about journal supplements. Even though supplements often undergo a different and perhaps inadequate kind of peer review than articles published in the parent journal, articles from supplements can be robustly cited. See http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009876
Oh Geez!
More gnashing of teeth and rending of sackcloth over the same topic! Enough already–CHANGE THE SYSTEM, IT STINKS.
And for those who suggest I offer positive suggestions on changes that could be made–I have, over and over again and the system does not change.
Talk is cheap.