Re: Homeostasis by Peer Review

Posted by Russell Gonnering on Jan 27, 2009; 9:21pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Homeostasis-by-Peer-Review-tp2228018p2228447.html

Peter-

This is an interesting proposal.  Having served on the editorial board of a number of medical publications, I agree that the peer review process tends to preserve the status quo.  The standard for an established author from a "reputable institution" may be, at least unconsciously, different from that used for a neophyte.  I like sending the paper without the authors listed.  I'm not sure about listing the reviewers on the published paper.

Russ

 

Russell S. Gonnering, MD, FACS, MMM, CPHQ

[hidden email]

On Jan 27, 2009, at 2:13 PM, Peter Lissaman wrote:

Peer Review is indeed an excellent preserver of status quo.  For the AIAA
(the main aerospace institution) the standard procedure is that the signed
draft paper is submitted by editors to reviewers, who then send anonymous
comments to the author.  Twenty years ago, as a Fellow of said august
Institution, I  proposed simply reversing the process:  sending the paper
anonymously to reviewers and then listing favorable reviewers on the
published paper.  It was received with deafening silence.  Actually, the
Royal Society does do something akin to this.

Peter Lissaman,  Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
TEL: [phone]                        FAX: [phone]





============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org