Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing
by RabbitAngstrom on Thursday March 28, 2013 @03:33PM
(#5457116)
Also, I have seen wholly unreviewed material in Nature Precedings, which I can only assume is due to the pressure of being scooped. As you might imagine, non-peer-reviewed scientific literature is the antithesis of the research culture, and the few colleagues who have mentioned Precedings have done so with distaste.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing
by alphydan on Sunday March 31, 2013 @06:21AM
(#5468281)
<<non-peer-reviewed scientific literature is the antithesis of the research culture>>. I don't think it's necessarily so. The arxiv is not really peer reviewed (you need to be recommended by someone to enter, but then are free to post pretty much anything).
The research culture is using your own critical thought to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are countless poor quality (and plain wrong) papers which are peer-reviewed. A scientist should not rely only on a journal's peer-review to give a seal of approval.