

Classical peer review: An empty gun (2010) - chalst
http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/12/S4/S13

======
danialtz
Very interesting read. I have both submitted and reviewed several papers and
grants. My impression is that peer-review is not as bad (as democracy example
of the author), only when done with patience and passion. The barriers it
creates are really troublesome.

I am doing a line of research in a very conservative community. You will be
surprised how easily my work gets rejected from the journals, because they
don't have the capacity, view and vision for such work. The grant scene is
even much more devastating. Other groups don't want to let you in. You don't
know who reviewed your grant; the reasons given are not major, but yet you are
rejected. So, you end up wasting lots of research time looking for fundings.
Quite boring.

Open journals are an alternative, of course. Yet, they need to be studies if
they are an effective method of publishing. Then, the question is how to trust
the results, and deal with many contradictory results. However, it seems it is
time to tackle them than to worry though. My last publication goes to an open
journal.

edit: typos

~~~
chalst
It's worth emphasising that Richard Smith is talking only about biomed.
Academic practices vary widely.

Julia's dictum in _1984_ is maybe relevant to overcoming cultural inertia: if
you follow all the little rules, you can break the big rules. Likewise, it
helps to eliminate trivial objections to your work when trying to get past
gatekeepers.

Of course, Julia and Winston didn't get away with breaking the big rules...

~~~
PaulHoule
The physics community gave up on peer review 15 years ago.

Today a physics paper makes a much bigger splash when it appears on arXiv.org
than when it appears in a "real" journal six months or 2 years later.

