Comments on: The Ultimate Rebuttal Letter http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/12/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-letter/ The musings and ravings of a computational biologist about science, computers, music and, you know, stuff Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:43:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Myotis_rufopictus http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/12/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-805 Myotis_rufopictus Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:01:43 +0000 http://bytesizebio.net/?p=2810#comment-805 @widdowquin: Yeah that's why papers should be open access and let you post comments on them like the PLoS journals. =) @widdowquin: Yeah that’s why papers should be open access and let you post comments on them like the PLoS journals. =)

]]> By: widdowquinn http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/12/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-623 widdowquinn Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:37:45 +0000 http://bytesizebio.net/?p=2810#comment-623 We shouldn't lose sight of the point that peer review doesn't stop at publication. Papers continue to be criticised or praised (and occasionally even cited ;)) after they are published. I think we should take a longer-term view of the process. Journal peer review is just a filtering process that attempts to ensure some minimum standard prior to publication, though its success in that is obviously debatable. Publication in peer-reviewed journals only implies that some peer review has been done, not that it has necessarily been done well, or that the conclusions or work are correct. I'm sure we've all seen a number of godawful papers in very high-ranking journals, and great papers in lower-ranked journals, and could bore each other stiff with the anecdotes. I'm OK with incorrect or unsound work being rejected, but in general I'd prefer that borderline work was published for community appraisal, rather than consigned to the bin. IMO it's the community, in citation, repetition and use of the work, that is the real peer review process. We shouldn’t lose sight of the point that peer review doesn’t stop at publication. Papers continue to be criticised or praised (and occasionally even cited ;) ) after they are published. I think we should take a longer-term view of the process. Journal peer review is just a filtering process that attempts to ensure some minimum standard prior to publication, though its success in that is obviously debatable. Publication in peer-reviewed journals only implies that some peer review has been done, not that it has necessarily been done well, or that the conclusions or work are correct. I’m sure we’ve all seen a number of godawful papers in very high-ranking journals, and great papers in lower-ranked journals, and could bore each other stiff with the anecdotes.

I’m OK with incorrect or unsound work being rejected, but in general I’d prefer that borderline work was published for community appraisal, rather than consigned to the bin. IMO it’s the community, in citation, repetition and use of the work, that is the real peer review process.

]]> By: HR http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/12/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-622 HR Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:32:02 +0000 http://bytesizebio.net/?p=2810#comment-622 Here is one thought ... Reward reviewers with some "money", discounts or total reviewer score (an academic measure that is accepted by department head) as a factor of change made to the original submission. All change cannot be good so the editors can rate the reviewer feedback and decide. The authors could vouch for the reviews but they would probably do it only when their paper or submission is accepted ;)! Here is one thought …

Reward reviewers with some “money”, discounts or total reviewer score (an academic measure that is accepted by department head) as a factor of change made to the original submission.

All change cannot be good so the editors can rate the reviewer feedback and decide. The authors could vouch for the reviews but they would probably do it only when their paper or submission is accepted ;) !

]]> By: Iddo http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/12/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-621 Iddo Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:17:30 +0000 http://bytesizebio.net/?p=2810#comment-621 I think that peer reviewing actually does work. To paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst form of science communication, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time. There is some implicit reward/penalty system for review quality. Reputation among journal editors is one. Being promoted to editorial board of a journal, networking points, service points counting towards academic promotion, etc. Your idea of rewarding good reviewers more explicitly is interesting, but I am not sure how to do that. I think that peer reviewing actually does work. To paraphrase Churchill, it’s the worst form of science communication, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time.

There is some implicit reward/penalty system for review quality. Reputation among journal editors is one. Being promoted to editorial board of a journal, networking points, service points counting towards academic promotion, etc. Your idea of rewarding good reviewers more explicitly is interesting, but I am not sure how to do that.

]]> By: HR http://bytesizebio.net/index.php/2009/12/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-letter/comment-page-1/#comment-620 HR Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:06:15 +0000 http://bytesizebio.net/?p=2810#comment-620 You point out correctly that peer-reviewing probably does not work. I have gotten three kinds of reviews you refer to in some form or the other ? Could the reviewers need to be rewarded or penalized someway based on the quality of reviews ? Can/Should the editor play a significant role in this ? -HR You point out correctly that peer-reviewing probably does not work. I have gotten three kinds of reviews you refer to in some form or the other ?

Could the reviewers need to be rewarded or penalized someway based on the quality of reviews ? Can/Should the editor play a significant role in this ?

-HR

]]>