[74] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Peer Review and the Net
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Fri Apr 24 16:01:33 1992
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1992 14:53:13 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
2 Messages, 53 Lines
*-----
From: Virginia Holtz <HOLTZ@WISCMACC>
Subject: Re: Peer Review and the Net
Gee Lee,
I think we agree!
That: Refereeing is not perfect (I said so in my last paragraph), but what is?
However the fact that some fraud cases get through the system doesn't make it
worthless, it just means that some folks, intentionally or unintentionally, get
bad information through a system set up to guard against it. How many cases of
fraudulant or ill conceived information would occur in an un-refereed
information source remains to be seen. What kind of error rate would make a
system worth perserving?
That: Old systems and new can and should coexist so we can compare, fine tune,
etc.
As for my horse analagy...I intended it to say what it says, which is basicly
that refereeing serves some useful purposes, why not keep it around while we are
looking for something as good or better. I said don't kill the horse, not don't
buy the car.
I'm not sure anyone has brought up one of the points made indirectly by Kuhn
about the role of the "ins" (most peer reviewers) as gatekeepers against the
"outs" especially at a time of paradigm change. He also, of course, has much
else to say about their role in pulling a discipline together into a cohesive
whole after the fragmenting effects which precede change. In this rich
information age we need all kinds of information sources and avenues.
Virginia Holtz
U Wisconsin-Madison
CHS Libraries
*-----
From: stu@rsch.oclc.org (Stu Weibel)
Subject: Re: Peer Review and the Net
To point to a few isolated cases of peer-reviewed fraud as evidence that
the peer review system does not work is tantamount to saying that because
there are crooked politicians, democracy should be abolished. As tantalizing
as that notion is, there are no palatable alternatives.
No E-journal will have an important impact on scholarship without this
critical, time-honored imprimatur. This is not to say that alternative
fora (such as this one) are without value or impact, but this is discourse,
not scholarship! Take your lines-of-PACS-L to your supervisor at your next
annual review if you like, or present them to a tenure and promotion committee
if you dare. Call it community service.
Stuart Weibel
OCLC Office of Research
[wondering if his supervisor is listening ;-)]
