New model of Peer Review (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 16, 2010, 01:03 (5212 days ago) @ David Turell

David,-The problem as I see it, is that you have two extremes; you have the current model, where experts control submissions to journals (the model you hate). This is a highly centralized model; one that seems almost stifling to some people. -The model suggested by this paper, is the democratic model that the www uses, and the one that the computational bio group at UNO has been building for biochem. -The difference about these... "blogs" as they were, is that credentialed people are the target audience. What you say makes sense if the goal is to target the layman, but as far as I'm concerned, peer review isn't for layman--it's for the professionals. -If you watch wikipedia articles, their approach to information purity is a pretty good one in the end; typically only experts write articles. Other people read and discussions evolve over how the article is to be "finished." This is EXACTLY what science needs... a centralized server (wikipedia) that allows debate and evolving views.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"