Arnaud’s Open blog

Opinions on open source and standards

Irony of all – Peer review

I received an invitation to a Symposium on Peer Reviewing, which is motivated by the following:

Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that “peer review works well as it is”. (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).

“A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research.” (Horrobin, 2001)

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.

After a short introduction the invitation then goes on into explaining how one should go at submitting a paper and what the selection process will be. And this is what it reads:

All Submitted papers will be reviewed using a double-blind (at least three reviewers), non-blind, and participative peer review.

Some people have humor. 🙂


March 2, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized |

1 Comment »

  1. Well, even if the situation is bleak, one can always try to improve it :-). On the subject of peer review, I was recently in a program committee for Wikis4SE @ ICSE 2009, and we followed a “peer review pattern”, “Identify the Champion”, that I found quite interesting: . I felt that at least a number of people are trying to improve the peer review process.
    You may also be interested by a nice paper by Mark Bernstein,

    Comment by Colas Nahaboo | March 3, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: