Re: Web-available and peer review

[James Mahaffy <mahaffy@xxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> Richard Cowen wrote:
> 
> >There has been some talk on discussions about the pro's and con's of
[snip]
> >far as I know.
> >
> >Have fun with it, and feel free to blast me directly by E-mail.
> 
> This is important enough that you should be blasted on Paleonet rather than
> just by direct e-mail, Richard. The temptation is great to shortcut the
> slow publishing process of the regular journals, particularly the
> paper-based ones (still the majority and the only ones usually recognized
> by Academia). But we shouldn't yield to it, at least not in this way!
> 
> The promise and threat of Internet and the Web is that anyone can put
> anything on it instantly. A lot of people do, as we know (sigh!). So why
> shouldn't we put all our scientific manuscripts there as soon as they are
> in a readable state rather than wait nine months to three years before we
> can get it published? I feel base to bring up the old
> "what-if-everyone-did-the-same" argument, but this is exactly the problem:
> if individual dumping of manuscripts became the common means of spreading
> scientific results, then premature, erroneous, or simply falsified results
> would be an immeasurably more serious problem than it is today. There are a
> lot of things to say about the present peer-review system, but its
> function, to keep the noise level bearably low, is important. As long as we
> have not come up with something better, we should stay with this system and
> try to improve rather than bypass it.

[snip]
> 
> (1) Direct submission of research results to the net without peer review
> or similar quality control will continue to be suspect and, as a practice,
> will generate more noise and disinformation than anything else.
> 
There seem to be some folks that are very seriously suggesting that the
peer review system especially in an anonymous form does more harm than
good.  One articulate and noisy chap is Alexander Berezin who has been
posting to bionet.general and elsewhere.  I tend to think that in spite
of its flaws it is better than the suggested alternatives.  Yet
Alexander's and other argument is powerful enough that it makes one stop
and think.  I suspect the problems may also be worse in area where a lot
of grant money and competing labs allow folks to nip the competition. 



Are there some folks out there who have followed this topic more than
me?  Can Alexander's arguments be dismissed?  

One thing is for sure articles on the internet make it easier for prof's
at smaller liberal art colleges to get the information.  You don't have
to  have your institution pay thousands for journals in your area or
take off weeks in the summer to go viist a major library. But that is a
totally different topic. I appreciate being able to download the
manuscript. 

> Stefan Bengtson                      _/        _/ _/_/_/    _/        _/
> Department of Palaeozoology         _/_/      _/ _/    _/  _/_/    _/_/
> Swedish Museum of Natural History  _/  _/    _/ _/    _/  _/  _/ _/ _/
> Box 50007                         _/    _/  _/ _/_/_/    _/    _/  _/
> S-104 05 Stockholm               _/      _/_/ _/   _/   _/        _/
> Sweden                          _/        _/ _/     _/ _/        _/
> 
> tel. +46-8 666 42 20
>      +46-18 54 99 06 (home)
> fax  +46-8 666 41 84
> e-mail Stefan.Bengtson@nrm.se
> 
> 

-- 
:
James F. Mahaffy                   e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu
Biology Department                 phone: 712 722-6279
Dordt College                      FAX 712 722-1198
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250