Peer-to-peer

Christopher Lee

Boundary-crossing research meets border patrol

Both universities and funding agencies have proclaimed the need for more ‘interdisciplinary’ research and more ‘interdisciplinary’ teams, yet publication of such work raises a unique set of challenges for peer review for which many traditional single-discipline journals are not fully prepared. Many of the most exciting research fields today are themselves hybrids of multiple disciplines, yet the peer review system gives rise to problems in assessing interdisciplinary research. The system can be fixed, given the tremendous opportunities today for new approaches

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2006 | Category: 5. Perspectives | Permalink

Debomoy Lahiri

Peer review would be improved by discussion across the lab

The current individual-based review system has its limitations. Modern research is both multidisciplinary and technical, and it is often difficult to find reviewers that have significant expertise across subfields together with technical know-how in a specific discipline. They are also given only a limited time to complete their review. So reviewers, even those within the same field of research, often differ in their evaluation of a paper. As an alternative, I suggest we use a system which I call peer group review.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2006 | Category: 5. Perspectives | Permalink

Tracey Brown

Understanding peer review is key to developing informed opinions about scientific research.

The general public are presented with 'scientific findings' from a wide range of sources, some more credible than others. Educators complain that pupils and students use web research with little regard for the status of what they find. Medical helplines are inundated with calls about risks and cures following media stories. And, much to the frustration of scientists, unwarranted scares, pseudoscience and health fads abound. How can judgements be made and useful questions asked?

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 20, 2006 | Category: 5. Perspectives | Permalink

Thomas DeCoursey

Should authors be told who their reviewers are?

The goal of any change in the peer review system must be to improve the quality of review, where quality is determined by two distinct functions: filtering manuscripts for publication in a given journal; and making constructive suggestions on how the manuscript or study could be improved. Would open review (in which reviewers sign their reviews) accomplish this goal? I have experienced several cases of open review, intentional and unintentional, with mixed results.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 14, 2006 | Category: 5. Perspectives | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

John Moore

Even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.

The research community understands that scientific information that has not been peer reviewed should not be taken seriously. As scientists, we discriminate between what is put out on blogs or in press releases and what is published in the formal scientific literature. We also know the difference between a peer-reviewed primary paper or review, and an unreviewed letter to the editor or opinion piece. In other words, we understand the peer-review system, and use it as a filter to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Read more here

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 05, 2006 | Category: 5. Perspectives | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)