The NESACS Blog
From the Northeastern Section of the ACS, focusing on career management and development
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
November 2018
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
04/23/18
Peer Review Basis in Science. Should we have a questioning attitude
Filed under: Recent Posts, First Year on Job, Mature professionals, Post-docs, Observ. Trends
Posted by: site admin @ 3:19 pm

Recently, Listened to a podcast that got me to thinking
about peer review in Chemistry.  Many of the people
I meet are so concerned about being an author of a set
number of publications as a basis for completing their
degree and for being considered a candidate for
subsequent positions.

Then, in mid career motivations can include:
make money, get promotions, grants and recognition;
get things right, publish or perish, demonstrate expertise 
and accomplishment.  [In the commercial world, publications
represent modest benchmarking for achieving goals.]
 
Steve Patterson interviewed Brian Earp  in a free flowing 
discussion that brings up the motivations for publishing
in scientific journals, replication, hypothesis testing
and peer review.

It is instructive perhaps to get an idea what happens
when an article is submitted for publication.  ACS and
Royal Society have tutorials on what is involved web
sites describing the process. … assuming it works properly.

The professional scientific process depends on this.  Just
like general publication conclusions errors can happen and
negative results are most often not presented.
Science is a slow process that involves error corrections,
application and refinement.  Perfect peer review will not
happen.  Earp opines that crowd sourced peer review of
pre-print articles might be an improvement over the
current situation.
.
See also.  

3 Responses to “Peer Review Basis in Science. Should we have a questioning attitude”

  1. site admin Says:
    ACS Pre-Print file: https://chemrxiv.org/
  2. site admin Says:


    Source: BLOG Patterson in Pursuit

     Publish or Perish: high volume productivity vs. work to refine results,
    confirm conclusions resulting in corporatization of academia

    good funding numbers– students, pubs, etc.

     Errors are part of the science process. Replication crisis;
    null hypothesis significance testing

    Negative results are not often published

     Rejected authors often move manuscripts to other journals.

    Publication is part of an unreliable QC methodology.
  3. site admin Says:
    FAQs for chemrxiv https://chemrxiv.org/f/faqs

Leave a Reply