Re: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

From: Pippa Smart <pippa.smart_at_GOOGLEMAIL.COM>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:33:08 +0100

Peer reivew has been widely studied in the biomedical sciences with
different conclusions about its efficacy, and whether more open or
more closed models make any difference to the quality.

A review of many different studies (135 studies considered, and 19
included in the review), are presented in "Effects of Editorial Peer
Review: A Systematic Review" by Tom Jefferson, MD; Philip Alderson,
MBChB; Elizabeth Wager, MA; Frank Davidoff, MD, published in JAMA.
2002;287:2784-2786.

Their conclusions are "Editorial peer review, although widely used,
is largely untested and its effects are uncertain." (so not terribly
helpful!)
Pippa

*****
Pippa Smart
Research Communication and Publishing Consultant
PSP Consulting - www.pspconsulting.org
3 Park Lane, Appleton, Oxon OX13 5JT, UK
Tel: +44 1865 864255
Mob: +44 7775 627688
Skype: pippasmart
pippa.smart_at_gmail.com
****
Editor of the ALPSP-Alert (http://Alert.alpsp.org) and Reviews editor
of Learned Publishing (www.learned-publishing.org)
****



2009/6/16 Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
> OA journals have no monopoly on low peer-review standards: There
are
> plenty of low-quality and even junk subscription journals (as we
have
> had occasion to note recently, with El Naschie's "Chaos, Solitons,
> Fractals" journal and of course the recent Pharmamercial Scams...
>
> The problem is not with peer review itself, but the rigor with
which
> it is practised. (Any resemblance to the NRA slogans on guns is
> unintended!) And the temptation to make a buck by cutting corners
is
> there with OA and non-OA journals alike...
>
> Stevan Harnad
> On 15-Jun-09, at 6:34 PM, Chen, Xiaotian wrote:
>
>> This story should be more of an OA problem than a peer-review
>> problem.
>>
>> According to the original LJ story, the journal "claims to
>> enforce peer-review."
>>
>> The model of author paying for OA publication may have
>> contributed to this, while common sense tells us that traditional
>> model (customers pay) may work better for quality control.
>>
>> Xiaotian Chen
>> Bradley U Library
>> Peoria, Illinois
>> http://hilltop.bradley.edu/~chen/index.html
>>
>
Received on Tue Jun 16 2009 - 11:35:52 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:48 GMT