Re: wikipedia, open access and publishing

From: (wrong string) élène.Bosc <>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 11:21:43 +0200

----- Original Message -----
      From: Jean Kempf
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:28 AM
Subject: wikipedia, open access and publishing

I recently had a long conversation with an engineering professor (he is in
semi-conductors, in one of the very good labs in Europe) and what he told
me about the way peer review is conducted in his very serious field
(there's after all a huge industry behind it) left me (as a historian)
totally aghast as to the perfunctoriness/speed of the process, the people
who did it (graduate students...), and by the general reliance on
"reputation" even in the very best (A) journals.

My question is simple then: can someone describe the peer review process
in one of the "hard" sciences, task by task (as an algorithm) in a
detailled way and by WHOM it is "normally" done.
I can relate the survey I conducted some years ago  in my lab, with 16
scientists working on biology, at the National Institute for Agricultural
Research ( INRA ). All were confirmed researchers doing peer review for
years and several times a year.
I asked them, what time they generally need for  reviewing.
I havn't the details at hand, but I remember very well that it went from 3
hours to 3 days!  And this peer review was done exactly in the same field
of biology.
Peer review depends on "individuals" and on their perception of "duty" and
not on the field of science.

Hélène Bosc
Received on Mon May 17 2010 - 10:36:24 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:50:09 GMT