Wednesday
Apr132011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Peer-to-peer review
Apr 13, 2011 Journals From the Chronicle of Higher Education via here and here.
Open peer review—which gives anyone who’s interested a chance to weigh in on scholarly content before it’s published—just got an institutional boost. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has given New York University Press and MediaCommons a $50,000 grant to take a closer look at open, or peer-to-peer (P2P), review, the press announced today. MediaCommons is a digital scholarly network hosted by the NYU Libraries and affiliated with the Institute for the Future of the Book.
Reader Comments (10)
Nature trialled open peer review in 2006. It did not work out well: there were hardly any reviews. In the trial, nearly half of the papers available for review received no comments; the other papers received very few comments. Here is a quote from the conclusion.
In many respects, peer-to-peer review occurs post publication in citation numbers. If a paper is influential it becomes widely cited.
The climatologists are, of course, aware of this. (Hence Mann's email to Phil Jones stating that Mann would use an artificially high citation score to have Jones admitted as an AGU fellow; and the enormous copy-and-paste publication output of many climatologists).
"The climatologists are, of course, aware of this. (Hence Mann's email to Phil Jones stating blah blah blah...."
Apr 13, 2011 at 7:16 PM | ZT
My God. How paranoid and obsessed do you have to be to still be yammering on about a bunch of cherry-picked stolen private emails from years ago?
They've been cleared time and time again in open independent enquiries. The only people clinging to those emails now, are those who have nothing else to hold onto in their crumbling anti-science world view, who desperately need to believe those emails actually hold some value.
Zed, you're just a projecting denialist. You wouldn't know the scientific method from a wet Wednesday in Lemon Street. Now get back to the Malabar* front+ and take your doublethink with you. Fortunately for humanity, you don't control history, and neither do any of your fantasy 'independent' 'enguiries'.
+Orwell (1948) Nineteen eighty four
*One of a variety of dismal Truro suburbs
Wow..I thought that post was an absurd parody done for obvious laughs..then i realised "zed" was serious..
For someone so obsessed with CO2..how did "zed" miss all the summaries on how lacking the "enquiries" were..
Here zed
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-shoddy-climategate-inquiries/
Then go and find where they cross examined the scientists about their emails..and then go and find where they checked the "science"..
And you know the answer to both without looking dont you zed..
Thats what is truly scary about co2 zealots like yourself.. :)
And when even the PCC recognises that Phil Jones can reasonably be described as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing” while UEA's scientists can be described as “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions” and their work as “shoddy” and “mendacious”, then the average man in the street can draw his own conclusions about the independence and thoroughness of the Inquiries.
Zed
So what do we do?
You are remarkably fuzzy on the detail.
@Apr 13, 2011 at 7:55 PM | ZedsDeadBed
Beneath contempt.
At least you're consistent.
Wouldn't open peer review simply allow people with an axe to grind (ahem Mann, ahem Jones) to attack papers that they weren't selected to review as well as those they were?
As a matter of routine, I confess I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climare, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
There is a Wikepedia article on open peer review that explains there are all sorts of different types.
Having read it, I wonder whose responsibility it was at the the J of P to filter out flat earthers and the like before launching better material into their open review process, and whether the filtering process was, or ever should have been the subject of criticism.