Message 00329 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00328 Message: 2/24 L1 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Hi all! Yesterday Athina Karatzogianni wrote:
perhaps of interest
Sure.
Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance." (Horrobin, 2001) This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.
I wonder whether this is a feature of the current existing process or of peer review as such. From what I heard here current peer review often is done bad so an improved process may keep the promise? Grüße Stefan
Thread: joxT00328 Message: 2/24 L1 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00329 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |