Notice removed Authoritative reference needed by Community
    Bounty Ended with just-learning's answer chosen by Community
    Notice added Authoritative reference needed by user21984
    Bounty Started worth 500 reputation by Community
    Notice removed Draw attention by Community
    Bounty Ended with no winning answer by Community
    Notice added Draw attention by Memming
    Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by Memming
4 improved formatting
source | link

From the videos:From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ....

...this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields...

Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.

In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there are blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.

My questions:

From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

...this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields...

Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.

In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.

From the videos:

....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ....

...this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields...

Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.

In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there are blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.

My questions:

3 formatting, spelling, grammar
source | link

From the videos: From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.

"..... this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields....

Now here is the really troublesome aspect...... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab , other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that..

In the past if the referess didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. .... We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs(like ChemBark and Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go 'there is something I don't quite get here' and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate. "

...this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields...

Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.

In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.

Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's ''equivalent'"equivalent" in physics.

From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.

"..... this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields....

Now here is the really troublesome aspect...... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab , other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that..

In the past if the referess didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. .... We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs(like ChemBark and Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go 'there is something I don't quite get here' and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate. "

Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's ''equivalent' in physics.

From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.

...this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields...

Now here is the really troublesome aspect... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab, other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that.

In the past if the referees didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs (ChemBark, Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go "there is something I don't quite get here" and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate.

Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's "equivalent" in physics.

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/489969954356461568
2 edited tags
source | link

Queries regarding the References/resources on problems surrounding peer review process and examples of where it has not worked outin physics?

I was watching this video on YouTube (this is the second part of it) and it motivated me to ask this question.

From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

The examples he talks about is discussed in this blog post.

enter image description here

When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.

"..... this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields....

Now here is the really troublesome aspect...... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab , other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that..

In the past if the referess didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. .... We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs(like ChemBark and Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go 'there is something I don't quite get here' and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate. "

My queries:

Q1 Are there other such examples in physics ? Can you point me towards a blog/site or something of the sort that goes through these things ?

Q2 Other sites like PubPeer. I am interested in post-publication peer review.

Q3 Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's ''equivalent' in physics.

Queries regarding the peer review process and examples of where it has not worked out

I was watching this video on YouTube (this is the second part of it) and it motivated me to ask this question.

From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

The examples he talks about is discussed in this blog post.

enter image description here

When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.

"..... this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields....

Now here is the really troublesome aspect...... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab , other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that..

In the past if the referess didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. .... We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs(like ChemBark and Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go 'there is something I don't quite get here' and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate. "

My queries:

Q1 Are there other such examples in physics ? Can you point me towards a blog/site or something of the sort that goes through these things ?

Q2 Other sites like PubPeer. I am interested in post-publication peer review.

Q3 Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's ''equivalent' in physics.

References/resources on problems surrounding peer review in physics?

I was watching this video on YouTube (this is the second part of it) and it motivated me to ask this question.

From the videos:

"....that's the good aspect of peer review. It should work to sift out problems with the interpretation, problems with the results. It should work to improve a paper. The problem is ..... there is a huge volume of stuff and we are increasingly getting swamped. .... here is one of the worst examples of where peer review has entirely failed. ...."

The examples he talks about is discussed in this blog post.

enter image description here

When you zoom in, you can clearly see that it is photo-shopped.

"..... this is one of the top ranking journals in the fields....

Now here is the really troublesome aspect...... if they had done it better (you can see a much better photo-shopped image in the blog), how would we know. Not only is money spent in that lab , other groups would chase this up and that's the worrying aspect and it builds and builds. Science is like that..

In the past if the referess didn't pick it up, that was the end of the story. .... We now have something called the post publication peer review. There are sites ( PubPeer) and there blogs(like ChemBark and Chemistry Blog) where people upload paper and say well this looks like a great paper or in many cases they go 'there is something I don't quite get here' and that leads to lots of comments from people in the field and I think this is where we are evolving to... away from the traditional peer review system. The publication is seen to be the start of the scientific process and not the end, where you generate debate. "

Are there other such examples in physics ? Can you point me towards a blog/site or something of the sort that goes through these things ?

Are there any blogs, articles or essays that discuss problems surrounding the peer-review process (in relation to physics). How it can improved, where alternative methods like post-publication review are discussed ? I know ChemBark for chemistry, I am looking for it's ''equivalent' in physics.

    Post Migrated Here from physics.stackexchange.com
1
source | link