User Tools

Site Tools


blog:comment-on-thank-goodness-the-peer-review-system

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

blog:comment-on-thank-goodness-the-peer-review-system [2017/03/06 17:21] (current)
seanburns created
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Comment on: "Thank '​Goodness':​ The Peer Review System"​ ======
  
 +**date: 2013-09-12 09:28**
 +
 +//​Goodness//​ made the list of items on an article titled, "​Fourteen Oddball Reasons You're Not Dead Yet" ((http://​www.slate.com/​articles/​health_and_science/​science_of_longevity/​2013/​09/​life_saving_inventions_people_and_ideas_cotton_shoes_fluoride_the_clean.html)). Here a philosopher is quoted:
 +
 +> Then there is the whole system of medicine, both the science and the technology. … So I am grateful to the editorial boards and referees, past and present, of Science, Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association,​ Lancet, and all the other institutions of science and medicine that keep churning out improvements,​ detecting and correcting flaws (Dennet, 11-02-2006 ((http://​www.edge.org/​conversation/​thank-goodness))).
 +
 +My reading of pieces like that take place amidst reading the research on peer review. That research is all over the board. But personally, the quote illustrates a good reason why any changes to the peer review process should come carefully and not by some
 +revolution. I think this [[http://​altmetrics.org/​altmetrics12/​barr/​|short article]] by Kelli Barr is a careful depiction of that discussion.
 +
 +  * categories:
 +      * peer review
blog/comment-on-thank-goodness-the-peer-review-system.txt · Last modified: 2017/03/06 17:21 by seanburns