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]

Re: [jox] Fwd: CFP - Symposium on Peer Reviewing



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]