Comments on: Publishing in Scientific Journals http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/08/19/publishing-in-scientific-journals/ Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:29:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Lloyd Morgan http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/08/19/publishing-in-scientific-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-2017 Lloyd Morgan Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:48:47 +0000 http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=3550#comment-2017 Thanks for the reply, Cedar—very interesting. My main gripes with the current process are: copyright transfer of published material, non-open-access journals. I don't know enough about the processes involved in publishing to know whether this is such a big issue, but it seems it to me, a layman. With these two issues solved, a lot of the other issues may automatically be solved, too ("human institution" issues). Of course, I am guessing. Thanks for the reply, Cedar—very interesting.

My main gripes with the current process are: copyright transfer of published material, non-open-access journals.

I don’t know enough about the processes involved in publishing to know whether this is such a big issue, but it seems it to me, a layman. With these two issues solved, a lot of the other issues may automatically be solved, too (“human institution” issues).

Of course, I am guessing.

]]> By: Cedar http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/08/19/publishing-in-scientific-journals/comment-page-1/#comment-2006 Cedar Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:44:50 +0000 http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/?p=3550#comment-2006 This is true, but statistical significance on its own is rarely the sole criteria used. Measures of effect size, as well as significance, are used by most journals and most reviewers in assessing the merits of an experiment. Further, these statistics are evaluated within the context of the particular experiment. This list is interesting, but also contains within it a lot of editorializing about, for example, "the political and arbitrary" nature of publishing. This is true, but mostly because the whole process is designed to be conservative, and mistrustful of large changes. The more entrenched the research, the more evidence must be used to topple it. Criticisms of the peer review process dwell on the fact that, well, it is run by humans, with vested interests, and businesses, who have to make money. But what would be better? While there are problems with our current system of scientific publication, I think in most cases it does preserve the spirit of peer review, which is a pillar of the scientific enterprise. it is still a human institution, but what isn't? This is true, but statistical significance on its own is rarely the sole criteria used. Measures of effect size, as well as significance, are used by most journals and most reviewers in assessing the merits of an experiment. Further, these statistics are evaluated within the context of the particular experiment.
This list is interesting, but also contains within it a lot of editorializing about, for example, “the political and arbitrary” nature of publishing. This is true, but mostly because the whole process is designed to be conservative, and mistrustful of large changes. The more entrenched the research, the more evidence must be used to topple it.
Criticisms of the peer review process dwell on the fact that, well, it is run by humans, with vested interests, and businesses, who have to make money. But what would be better? While there are problems with our current system of scientific publication, I think in most cases it does preserve the spirit of peer review, which is a pillar of the scientific enterprise. it is still a human institution, but what isn’t?

]]>