Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.10.10408112318000.2826-100000 at pandora>...
> Indeed, it is not at all clear that peer-review needs any reforming! But
> even if it does, surely that should come on the basis of actual empirical
> studies of ways of improving peer review, and only if and when those
> studies actually yield positive results demonstrating that they have
> indeed found a better way -- rather than on the basis of untested ideas
> that come from trying to solve a completely different problem: the problem
> of access to the peer-reviewed literature we have today, such as it is!
Dear Steven,
"Actual empirical studies" require clear end-points by which
to judge success or failure. This is very difficult to do. Thus, calling
for such studies is hardly likely to be productive. Better to admit from
the start that the peer-review process is likely to be highly error-prone.
Once this is recognized then we can begin building a peer-review system that
takes this into account. In my opinion, the present peer-review system falls
far short of what is required. For more please see the URL below.
Sincerely,
Donald Forsdyke, Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note
http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/peerrev.htm
