Stevan Harnad wrote:
> You've lost me: If I'm a doctor trying to keep up with how to treat my
> cancer patients, how is a professional society going to help me
> sort good treatments from garbage (unless it publishes a peer reviewed
> journal that certifies them as such)? You're mixing up research
> accreditation and personal accreditation here: A society might be able
> to certify doctors, but only qualified experts can certify the documents
> in a field of current research expertise. Or do we consider all other
> areas of research, scientific and scholarly, as less important than the
> life-and-death matters of medicine?
Having practiced medicine and treated cancer patients, I have no
problem with this. Certainly a practicing physician is not going to have
time to read the primary literature. Cancer researchers today pick what
is perceived as the latest break-though because the journals have
accredited it. Cancer researchers TOMORROW will sift through the
electronic literature using a multiplicity of search tools, including
authors' track-records, and (if the author has sought it), the
approbation scores contributed by peer-reviewers picked by the
appropriate scientific society. If cancer researchers judge the work
important they will set out to confirm the results, and their
confirmatory papers will, in turn, appear in the electronic literature.
These will be read by those writing reviews of promising new therapies,
usually people with high reputations in the field, and so the work will
come to the attention of practicing physicians.
> > Actually, I find journal peer-review as currently practiced more akin
> > to censorship than quality control.
>> It would be interesting to hear how many years of experience in editing
> that finding was based on: How much wading through raw manuscripts to
> sort out what is worth reading and trying to build upon has led you to
> this conclusion, and whatever your trick is, please share it with us!
Well, over three decades of interacting with editors and reviewers (both
as author and reviewer) has given me some feel for the matter. The peer
reviewing of papers (usually without reimbursement) takes up much of the
time of busy people, who thus have less time for other matters
(preparing lectures, reading the literature, treating patients,
research, even fishing). Much of the effort, both on the part of
reviewers and of the author responding to reviewers, is, in my
experience, of little value. If I need help in writing a paper, I
consult colleagues both within my institution and elsewhere, BEFORE I
even consider submitting. Subsequent peer review adds little to this.
> > With search engines of various
> > kinds, indexes of citations, indexes of professional pedigrees, etc.
> > most readers in the electronic media will have all they need to find
> > what is worth reading. There is a splendid opportunity for the
> > publishers to provide services in this respect,
> If we can produce high quality without answerability in this area, then
> this will be the first and only area of human endeavour in which that
> strategy will have succeeded. Human nature being what it is, it takes
> the path of least effort when it can, regressing on the mean or even
> meaner.
So what? Let them publish in the electronic media. There is plenty
of room. Their work will be disregarded, but who cares? Why should they
be "answerable"?
I do not personally have the time to troll through all those
> least-effort products and find what (if anything) still meets the
> standards (such as they are) of the refereed, tagged literature of
> today.
Then don't! Await the secondary reviews by accredited experts in the
field.
With best wishes,
Donald Forsdyke (Discussion Leader, Bionet.journals.note)
