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