Let’s make peer review scientific

Re:Let’s make peer review scientific by apathy on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:27PM (#12050793)

The review model in the WTC's new world order is open, as it currently is in the F1000 journals, and the Wellcome Trust pays the APC so there is no excuse for grantees not to publish. This slowly kicks away all the bullshit excuses that are presented for lack of scientific productivity so that the funder can objectively assess "what are these people doing with our money, and does that advance real, non-press-release science?" It's brilliant imho.

https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/why-were-launching-new-publishin...

Momentum is important. There's no reverse on a submarine. One of the biggest funders in the world has taken away a standard excuse for failing to openly report results, negative or otherwise. It is free to readers and free to authors funded by the Trust. And all of the reviewing process is out in the open.

This is a huge step. The only other funding body I can think of with similar weight is NIH, and (at least internally) they're starting to move in the same direction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Let’s make peer review scientific by untilHellbanned on Thursday July 07, 2016 @03:19PM (#12051527)

I'm a new professor in the US so I'm happy for you but it looks like we'll have to wait for the NIH to do its job.

F1000 is entirely post-publication review where reviewers identities are known? If so, I love it!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Let’s make peer review scientific by apathy on Friday July 08, 2016 @12:08AM (#12053529)

The NIH does a pretty decent job all things considered. With an organization that size, there is considerable inertia, but newer blood is starting to fix some of the older problems.

Best of luck -- work on stuff that matters, if you can :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]