Re: Hoax Article Accepted by OA Bentham Journal

[Thomas Krichel <krichel@openlib.org>]

B.G. Sloan writes

> I'm sure that all the good folks (editors, reviewers, etc.) who 
> have labored many hours in a sincere attempt to support the 
> peer review process will gladly accept Mr. Krichel's assessment 
> that their efforts have been "useless".  :-)

I have not said that peer review is useless. Labeling something 
as peer reviewed should not, however, be seen as a indicator of 
quality of a document without some knowledge of the extent of 
peer review.

> Mr. Krichel's reply to my question seems to be "I don't have to 
> prove I'm right...you have to prove I'm wrong."

As Pippa has pointed out, the empirical evidence appears to be 
mixed.

> As he says, he doesn't need to study the empirical evidence 
> that is published in those pesky peer-reviewed journals :-)

Where have I said that? I said that my argument involves reason 
rather than emprical evidence.

> Does Mr. Krichel believe we would be better off in a world 
> without the checks and balances of peer review?

I do believe that it is largely an artifact of an era where 
marginal costs publishing was substantial.

> What does he suggest to replace peer review?

Usage measurements.

> Sure, peer review is far from perfect, and there is ample 
> anecdotal evidence that it can be flawed. That doesn't prove 
> that peer review is "useless".

I have not said that peer review is useless. Labeling something 
as peer reviewed should not, however, be seen as a indicator of 
quality of a document without some knowledge of the extent of 
peer review.

This is my last post on this thread.

Cheers,

Thomas Krichel                    http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                               RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
offline 2009-06-20 to 2009-06-28             skype: thomaskrichel