From: Enigl@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 25 1996 - 12:05:03 MDT
In a message dated 96-09-24 20:17:23 EDT, Robin D. Hanson
hanson@hss.caltech.edu writes:
<< what do you put on your vita so readers of it can quickly assess the
quality of the publication? With an ordinary journal the journal itself
signals quality. >>
An ordinary journal signals quality (or lack of) by its history. With time,
this on-line publication system will be recognized as quality (or not). I
think the requirement of application to join is a safeguard. Applications
can be verified. "Recognized" names of people doing the peer review might
help if they join.
The peer review I have been involved with is not as good as this proposal
because the reviewers were chosen poorly. They did not even know my subject.
And, I was chosen to review some far way areas which I sent to people who
_did_ know the subject. At least I notified the editor and got approval to
do this. Some people I sure have not. Will this on-line system be any
better?
Currently anonymous reviewers are chosen. Do you think this is good? How do
you know _their_ quality even in an ordinary journal? I've seen terrible
articles published in highly respected journals. Without knowing the
reviewers, I can say they must have been very poor or they passed the article
off but to lesser qualified people. The system we have now is the problem.
Anyone can "pass off" a review to another reviewer. Will the on-line system
prevent this with PGP signatures?
The main reason I like peer review is: To make me think about what the
reviewers have said. Therefore, I improve my publication. This works in
many cases but I would like more views of my work. I think the on-line
system will do this better than what I have now.
Davin
Davin C. Enigl, MS-MEAS, President-Microbiologist
HACCP Validations-sm Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points for the
Food, Cosmetic, Pharmaceutical, and Nutritional Supplement Industry
Voice: (916) 989-8264, Fax: (916) 989-8205, Pager: (714) 725-7695
9040 Erle Blunden Way
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
September 25, 1996
9:56 am
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST