[GOAL] Re: Open Access to Peer Reviewed Research

[Stevan Harnad]

Eric, I wasn't burying peer review, I was praising it! And saying (for the
n-to-the-nth time that peer-review reform is independent of OA, and vice
versa -- though OA will no doubt help make peer review much quicker and
more efficient, whichever way it goes) -- Stevan

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Eric F. Van de Velde <
eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com> wrote:

> Stevan:
> Peer review is not just about maintaining quality. It is part of a process
> of getting new ideas accepted. A discovery adds to human knowledge only if
> it is accepted. Right now, anonymous peer review starts the process of
> accepting/rejecting research.
>
> It is certainly valid to question whether peer review remains the best
> approach and to propose/explore alternative mechanisms. But that debate is
> quite distinct from Open Access. The Open Access movement need not add ever
> more divisive goals to its charter.
>
> However, Open Access is a "shock to the system" that will reverberate for
> years to come. It would be naive to think the system will remain as is,
> except for Open Access. Open Access is the start of a process of change for
> the scholarly-communication system, not the end of one.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a blog on peer review (Creating Knowledge).
> At the time, I did not announce it on this list as it was not directly tied
> to Open Access (except in the closing lines). If interested, here is the
> link:
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2015/01/creating-knowledge.html
>
> And here is a teaser:
>
> Every scholar is part wizard, part muggle.
>
> As wizards, scholars are lone geniuses in search of original insight. They
> question everything. They ignore conventional wisdom and tradition. They
> experiment.
>
> As muggles, scholars are subject to the normal rules of power and
> influence.
>
> Continue at:
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2015/01/creating-knowledge.html
> --Eric.
>
>
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @evdvelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Many physicists say — and some may even believe — that peer review does
>> not add much to their work, that they would do fine with just unrefereed
>> preprints, and that they only continue to submit to peer-reviewed journals
>> because they need to satisfy their promotion/evaluation committees.
>>
>> And some of them may even be right. Certainly the giants in the field
>> don’t benefit from peer review. They have no peers, and for them
>> peer-review just leads to regression on the mean.
>>
>> But that criterion does not scale to the whole field, nor to other
>> fields, and peer review continues to be needed to maintain quality
>> standards. That’s just the nature of human endeavor.
>>
>> And the quality vetting and tagging is needed before you risk investing
>> the time into reading, using and trying to build on work -- not after.
>> (That's why it's getting so hard to find referees, why they're taking so
>> long (and often not doing a conscientious enough job, especially for
>> journals whose quality standards are at or below the mean.)
>>
>> Open Access means freeing peer-reviewed research from access tolls, not
>> freeing it from peer review...
>>
>> Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review.
>> <http://cogprints.org/1646/> *Nature* [online] (5 Nov. 1998), *Exploit
>> Interactive* 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B. (2004) (ed.) *Peer Review: A
>> Critical Inquiry*. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp. 235-242.
>> http://cogprints.org/1646/
>>
>> Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal
>> <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265617/>. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, (Eds.) *The
>> Future of the Academic Journal.* Chandos.
>> http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265617/
>>
>> Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity
>> Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed
>> <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/>. *D-Lib Magazine* 16 (7/8).
>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/
>>
>> Harnad, S. (2014) Crowd-Sourced Peer Review: Substitute or supplement
>> for the current outdated system?
>> <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/>
>>  *LSE Impact Blog* 8/21 August 21 2014
>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/08/21/crowd-sourced-peer-review-substitute-or-supplement/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150203/bda30024/attachment-0001.html