20 replies to this topic

[Biog]

bob1, on 01 February 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:

Biog, on 01 February 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

I don't understand why peer-review journal should continue to exist! Longtime ago, all scientific and great discoveries came out without peer-reviewed journals!
Did Mandel, Darwin, Einstein, Newton,...and so on, publish their research in peer-reviewed journals?
So, why should we support the capitalist publishing policy to make them more and more rich?
Publishing is becoming business issue, not to publish scientific results!
I am an ardent supporter for the open publishing and eliminate the peer-reviewed policy!
Knowledge should be free and available to everyone without constraints!

You realise that the majority of "good" open source journals are also peer-reviewed?  Peer review is important otherwise you end up with work that is unacceptable scientifically (for methodology, reasoning/deductions/conclusions drawn etc) being published and wasting everyone's time working out what is a good paper and what is not.

People will be able to screen out the good from the bad, by critical thinking and reflection.
When you try something that doesn't work, it is likely to be bad. If you disagree with an author you relied on his work or results but got nothing, you can point it out and warn to rely on it. People will, so, be scared of incredibility if they publish something unreproducible. .
I hate the elitism! I hate Nature and Science magazines and all other elite names or brands, which harvest a lot of money for something that should be done for free.

[bob1]

Biog, on 01 February 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

People will be able to screen out the good from the bad, by critical thinking and reflection.
When you try something that doesn't work, it is likely to be bad. If you disagree with an author you relied on his work or results but got nothing, you can point it out and warn to rely on it. People will, so, be scared of incredibility if they publish something unreproducible. .
I hate the elitism! I hate Nature and Science magazines and all other elite names or brands, which harvest a lot of money for something that should be done for free.

Uhhh no, try working in a field where there are a lot of papers each week on the topic, if you have the time to read 15+ new papers per week (and catch up on historical papers if you are new in the field) and be able to do bench work full time then you are likely to be a very successful scientist.  In my field there are approximately 30000 already published papers on the one protein, not to mention all the other associated papers which are still relevant to the topic, and then there's methodological papers and the new ones at a rate of about 7-8 a week.  Without peer-review, the rate of publication would go up (because they could be published straight away), the quality of the publications would go down because people could easily put in papers that weren't complete stories or had major flaws, just to get their publication list up.

Sure, in an ideal world it would be possible to screen out the good from the bad for yourself, but what about the papers where the ideas seem plausible or data has been falsified, but you would have to repeat the experiments to know for yourself... how many experiments can you do and how much money do you have in a week just to verify someone else's data which may or may not be accurate?   Have a look at any non-peer reviewed system (e.g. the internet, newspapers) and see how much good stuff is out there, which isn't biased in some manner.  Peer review works to screen out these problems to a large extent, though falsified data is difficult.  

Nature and Science... well, if you don't like what they do, don't publish with them (though it might be difficult to avoid Nature Publishing Group), but I seriously doubt you will be able to convince many others to not try to publish in those journals, they have the rankings they do for a reason.

[seanspotatobusiness]

bob1, on 02 February 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

Biog, on 01 February 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

People will be able to screen out the good from the bad, by critical thinking and reflection.
When you try something that doesn't work, it is likely to be bad. If you disagree with an author you relied on his work or results but got nothing, you can point it out and warn to rely on it. People will, so, be scared of incredibility if they publish something unreproducible. .
I hate the elitism! I hate Nature and Science magazines and all other elite names or brands, which harvest a lot of money for something that should be done for free.

Uhhh no, try working in a field where there are a lot of papers each week on the topic, if you have the time to read 15+ new papers per week (and catch up on historical papers if you are new in the field) and be able to do bench work full time then you are likely to be a very successful scientist.  In my field there are approximately 30000 already published papers on the one protein, not to mention all the other associated papers which are still relevant to the topic, and then there's methodological papers and the new ones at a rate of about 7-8 a week.  Without peer-review, the rate of publication would go up (because they could be published straight away), the quality of the publications would go down because people could easily put in papers that weren't complete stories or had major flaws, just to get their publication list up.

Sure, in an ideal world it would be possible to screen out the good from the bad for yourself, but what about the papers where the ideas seem plausible or data has been falsified, but you would have to repeat the experiments to know for yourself... how many experiments can you do and how much money do you have in a week just to verify someone else's data which may or may not be accurate?   Have a look at any non-peer reviewed system (e.g. the internet, newspapers) and see how much good stuff is out there, which isn't biased in some manner.  Peer review works to screen out these problems to a large extent, though falsified data is difficult.  

Nature and Science... well, if you don't like what they do, don't publish with them (though it might be difficult to avoid Nature Publishing Group), but I seriously doubt you will be able to convince many others to not try to publish in those journals, they have the rankings they do for a reason.

I agree that peer-review is essential but I also agree that to the people at the top of the publishing business, it's all about the big bucks. I sure would publish in one of those journals (hopefully paying the charge needed to make the article open-access) but I would certainly feel dirty afterwards! A dirty sell-out is what I am!

I think a paper in one of these journals would help a lot to improve one's resume and with the field being so competetive, I can't afford to have such morals

[bob1]

seanspotatobusiness, on 05 February 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

I agree that peer-review is essential but I also agree that to the people at the top of the publishing business, it's all about the big bucks. I sure would publish in one of those journals (hopefully paying the charge needed to make the article open-access) but I would certainly feel dirty afterwards! A dirty sell-out is what I am!

I think a paper in one of these journals would help a lot to improve one's resume and with the field being so competetive, I can't afford to have such morals

If you think you are being gouged for publishing, you should see what is charged for library subscriptions (as in the library has the subscription) for these journals - for Nature and Scientific American only a site licence for a middle size Uni (12,000-20,000 people) is US$11,552.00 per year.

[Wolverena]

Biog, on 01 February 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

I don't understand why peer-review journal should continue to exist! Longtime ago, all scientific and great discoveries came out without peer-reviewed journals!
Did Mandel, Darwin, Einstein, Newton,...and so on, publish their research in peer-reviewed journals?
So, why should we support the capitalist publishing policy to make them more and more rich?
Publishing is becoming business issue, not to publish scientific results!
I am an ardent supporter for the open publishing and eliminate the peer-reviewed policy!
Knowledge should be free and available to everyone without constraints!

I can see how peer-review can be frustration. However, if it is done the right way it can improve your paper and your work. Unfortunately, sometimes competition and certain personalities can hinder this "intentionally positive process".

And I agree, publishing should not be a business issue.....

[Ameya P]

bob1, on 06 February 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

If you think you are being gouged for publishing, you should see what is charged for library subscriptions (as in the library has the subscription) for these journals - for Nature and Scientific American only a site licence for a middle size Uni (12,000-20,000 people) is US$11,552.00 per year.

Although, its a dollar per person,  I strongly support the idea that all publications must be available for free. Any person with an internet connection must be able to access information he wishes to. The journals can always make money from advertising to cover its maintenance costs.

With so many users, if Facebook can be free, then why not these sites. Comparatively, its a very small portion of the population that they are catering to