Re: Publication at LANL as involving peer review

From: Murray Turoff <turoff_at_CONCENTRIC.NET>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:07:59 -0400

It seems to me that there is a hidden assumption in the discussions that peer
review will be essentially the same process it is now. There are almost
unlimited opportunities to change for the peer review process and I regret that
not much effort is going into any experimentation with the process. We tried
for a number of years to get NSF to experiment and that fell on deaf ears.
But here are just a few:
1. Reviewers use pen names in a group conference so they can examine the
inconsistencies in their reviews and discuss them.
2. Authors are allowed to enter the peer review conference and respond to the
3. Papers are published with the peer reviews.
4. Any reader of the paper able to vote on their agreement or disagreement
with various issues in the reviews.
5. Readers are allowed to attach comments to a paper so the paper becomes a
discussion space about that paper.
6. Readers are allowed to create links to other papers and other discussions
related to specific issues in the paper.
7. Authors allowed to update and improve the paper under certain protocols.
Clearly there are new dynamic roles for "editors" in keeping the on going
process organized. But in all these possibilities what we have is the review
process as a continuous one.
Received on Wed Feb 10 1999 - 19:17:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:35 GMT