At 10:37 PM 11/18/2002 -0200, you wrote:
>There is an interesting article in The Economist of this week
>(November 16th-22nd) which raises questions about the scientific
>peer-review system:
>
> http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1441745
>
>I am afraid that this article is not "Open Access" but the story and the
>facts can be found on this (much more specific) page:
>
> The Bogdanov Affair, by John Baez
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
>
>I wonder: is this affair related to the discussion between Andrew and Stevan
>on
>
> Peer Review and Self-Selected Vetting: Supplement or Substitute?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Imre Simon
Here's a free story on the Bogdanovs in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/weekinreview/17JOHN.html
And here's one in the Chronicle of Higher Education, accessible only to
subscribers
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i12/12a01601.htm
The Bogdanov story is not related to the dialogue between Andrew and Stevan
except in the broadest sense. Because it challenges how well peer review
is performed today in cutting edge physics, it invites the question how to
reform peer review in order to preserve its traditional value and prevent
this sort of problem.
I find the Bogdanov case fascinating, but I haven't yet seen any direct FOS
or open-access implications. Peer review is essential to open-access
science just as it is to closed- or toll-access science. Open access
doesn't depend on peer-review reform any more (or any less) than
toll-access science depends on peer-review reform.
Peter
----------
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374
Email peters_at_earlham.edu
Web
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
Editor, FOS News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Received on Tue Nov 19 2002 - 01:40:04 GMT