nerdgirl 0 #1 January 11, 2008 Just curious. (Of course this is a non-scientific poll. VR/Marg RIP Sir Edmund Hillary Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AllisonH 0 #2 January 11, 2008 Had one sent to me to review a year or two ago, but I declined because I wasn't at a point yet where I had enough experience to feel comfortable reviewing someone else's work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #3 January 11, 2008 Yes. It's a pain in the arse too. But it should be remembered that being a referee for a journal article is only the start of the process. Once the paper is published, that is when the real peer review process begins. In general, I think the peer review process is not that well understood by people who haven't dealt with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,170 #4 January 11, 2008 I've both reviewed (although mostly for grammar, definitions, and language -- there were others who were better at the technical in the papers I was reviewing), and tried to get others to review one I wrote. It's not easy to get busy people to dedicate some time to reviewing; it's a thankless job to most of them. The way we review code and requirements here is a heavily peer-review environment. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #5 January 11, 2008 QuoteYes. It's a pain in the arse too. But it should be remembered that being a referee for a journal article is only the start of the process. Once the paper is published, that is when the real peer review process begins. In general, I think the peer review process is not that well understood by people who haven't dealt with it. Excellent points -- all of them! Climate change has gotten much more attention than the great silylium ion debate in the pages (letters and technical articles) of Science, between George Olah (Nobel Prize 1995) & Chris Reed (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/263/5149/985.pdf) or the the more recent sonoluminesce and neutron generation dispute among Rusi Teleyarkan, Ken Suslick, and Saul Putterman, (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5581/496b, http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/Sonofusion%20Paper-pdf_Lahey_NURETH-11.pdf, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5767/1532.pdf) or Dick Ebright's criticisms of biodefense funding by NIH-NIAID (over fundamental inquiries into pathogenesis and infectious disease), (Sidney Altman, et al., “An Open Letter to Elias Zerhouni,” Science, 4 March 2005, vol 307, p. 1409, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;307/5714/1409c). These guys don't just write letters; they go out and 'strongly suggest' their grad students & postdocs do experiments to dispute the other's hypothesis. And then publish the data, models, etc. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #6 January 11, 2008 QuoteThese guys don't just write letters; they go out and 'strongly suggest' their grad students & postdocs do experiments to dispute the other's hypothesis. And then publish the data, models, etc. ...and repeat. That's peer review. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 January 11, 2008 QuoteYes. It's a pain in the arse too. But it should be remembered that being a referee for a journal article is only the start of the process. Once the paper is published, that is when the real peer review process begins. Right, when academic egos kick into full gear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,170 #8 January 11, 2008 QuoteRight, when academic egos kick into full gearAnd those egos, kicked into gear, try to disprove those assertions, and "encourage" their students to disprove those assertions. If they're disproved, then we've learned that something is not true as stated (which can mean anything from WRONG to not-stated-clearly), or the assertions cannot be disproved, in which case we begin to accept them as likely. People still keep trying to disprove them. That's why they're called theories. It's kind of a win-win situation, but a messy and contentious one sometimes. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #9 January 11, 2008 All the time. My work is also peer reviewed for publication. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #10 January 11, 2008 QuoteRight, when academic egos kick into full gear. Richard Dawkins tells of a moment that sums up the ego of academics. A formative influence on my undergraduate self was the response of a respected elder statesmen of the Oxford Zoology Department when an American visitor had just publicly disproved his favourite theory. The old man strode to the front of the lecture hall, shook the American warmly by the hand and declared in ringing, emotional tones: "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." Do you think any of the usual suspects in speakers corner could ever say anything like that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #11 January 11, 2008 Technical, yes all the time. Scientific...no.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #12 January 11, 2008 Yes, probably several hundred. I used to be on the editorial boards of two journals, and edited the proceedings of two international conferences too. Agree - it's a pain in the butt, but no-one has yet come up with a better method.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 January 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteRight, when academic egos kick into full gearAnd those egos, kicked into gear, try to disprove those assertions, and "encourage" their students to disprove those assertions. If they're disproved, then we've learned that something is not true as stated (which can mean anything from WRONG to not-stated-clearly), or the assertions cannot be disproved, in which case we begin to accept them as likely. yes, this is the sunday school version of peer review, where science triumphs over ignorance. I was alluding to the fact that quite a few of the people are petty assholes and that shows up in the process too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #14 January 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteRight, when academic egos kick into full gearAnd those egos, kicked into gear, try to disprove those assertions, and "encourage" their students to disprove those assertions. If they're disproved, then we've learned that something is not true as stated (which can mean anything from WRONG to not-stated-clearly), or the assertions cannot be disproved, in which case we begin to accept them as likely. yes, this is the sunday school version of peer review, where science triumphs over ignorance. I was alluding to the fact that quite a few of the people are petty assholes and that shows up in the process too. The "process" filters them out too. It's self correcting. What would you prefer to put in its place, then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 January 11, 2008 I don't see a need for replacement. I just see it as the sometimes ugly process that it is, polluted by personal grudges and political decisions wrt funding. Not all problems need or can be solved. (something you fail to see on another topic) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #16 January 11, 2008 QuoteI don't see a need for replacement. I just see it as the sometimes ugly process that it is, polluted by personal grudges and political decisions wrt funding. Not all problems need or can be solved. (something you fail to see on another topic) Tell us something about your personal experience with peer review, then, that has made you so negative about it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,471 #17 January 11, 2008 > I just see it as the sometimes ugly process that it is, polluted by > personal grudges and political decisions wrt funding. I agree, but I think there's a difference between the process of peer review and the awarding of grants (both public and private.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 January 12, 2008 my negativity stems from growing up in a university setting. In the corporate world, there is a lot of petty fighting, but ultimately results must be delivered, or people get cut. In the university, that isn't true. You can't fire the tenured professor for being an asshole, or not delivering anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #19 January 12, 2008 Quotemy negativity stems from growing up in a university setting. In the corporate world, there is a lot of petty fighting, but ultimately results must be delivered, or people get cut. In the university, that isn't true. You can't fire the tenured professor for being an asshole, or not delivering anymore. So you don't ACTUALLY have any personal experience. That figures.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #20 January 12, 2008 Thanks for the interesting discussion. From my limited experience (compared to some of the more ‘seasoned’ scholars posting), I’ve seen peer-review in science that works. Often works very well. Maybe my ego is just sound enough … but I really appreciate reviews that are constructively critical because they help make the manuscript *better.* I recognize that’s not always the case but speculate the alternative is rare rather than common. We do often guess at who a reviewer is (frequently based on which references the reviewer asserts need to be added ). Even as intellectually painful as it was, I’d like to think that the changes that were inspired by the reject from Science improved the manuscript, which was subsequently accepted by Nature. Now that I publish in social science literature, I do see more problems (albeit still from a limited data pool & anecdotal). In science, every review I got (even from less prominent/more specialized journals) had 3 or more reviewers. Last fall, I reveiwed a PNAS paper that probably had at least a half dozen reviewers. I’ve had a paper rejected from the leading international security journal based on one reviewer whose review I contested as inadequate. I had another accepted (in 21 days) after 1 review (didn’t contest that one ). I value the comments and take seriously my responsibility to equally provide meaningful, constructive comments as a reviewer. One of my favorite examples of problems in social science literature comes from International Studies Review "WMD Terrorism Research: Whereto from Here?" 2005: 7:140-143, in which the author asserts: “New technologies (at risk for terrorist appropriation) include biotechnology, nanotechnology, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and Bose-Einstein condensates.” WTF?!?!?! That latter one always elicits uproarious laughter from physicists when I use that quote in talks. Al Qa’eda with laser tables and liquid helium in Waziristan? (And the molecular biologists laugh at the SNPs comment.) Clearly, someone with a technical clue did not review that manuscript. When I first read it, I actually wondered if it was intentionally-satirical Signs Alan B. Sokol affairs re-visited. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 January 13, 2008 QuoteQuotemy negativity stems from growing up in a university setting. In the corporate world, there is a lot of petty fighting, but ultimately results must be delivered, or people get cut. In the university, that isn't true. You can't fire the tenured professor for being an asshole, or not delivering anymore. So you don't ACTUALLY have any personal experience. That figures. It's hard for that sort of experience to get any more personal. And the second point obviously stands without any review from you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #22 January 19, 2008 regular part of my job...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #23 January 19, 2008 Why yes. I reviewed the mss of a fellow novelist after mine hit the shelves. Two things... Poor fucker must have been desperate. And... It was better than mine IMHO. I found it exceptionally researched and well written. You should all buy it. Soldier of Rome- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #24 January 19, 2008 QuoteWhy yes. I reviewed the mss of a fellow novelist after mine hit the shelves. Amazon makes it sound as if it wasn't really reviewed/ proofread at all.....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
