- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm wondering if anyone had an experience where their paper was accepted w/o peer review (review external of the journal editors). Does that even happen?
Pub. acceptance w/o review
- Thread starter microTAS
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2003
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
I have never heard of a journal that publishes without peer review. I asked my PI (who is very well published and has been in the biz a good 40 years)...he has not either. Maybe an internet-only journal would do so? Im not sure.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
heycurly said:
Nope, not an internet-only journal and impact factor is quite high actually. I never heard of this previously either, but I guess in unusual circumstances it can happen. It was a materials journal however
1
13538
I wouldn't trust the results or cite the paper in a paper of my own if I knew it had not been subjected to rigorous peer review. Peer review is absolutely essential - it is what separates an academic journal from mere "magazines".
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 40
- Reaction score
- 0
PNAS is a fairly prestigious journal, which is not peer-reviewed. There has been some debate as to the validity of published articles without peer review. But, PNAS is mostly geared toward members of the National Academy of Sciences. In other words, to be peer reviewed, you need peers. Who is the peer for someone is the top in their respective field?
utcrew said:
Isn't The Lancet also not peer-reviewed? But I have heard grumblings about the quality of articles in The Lancet and PNAS that I have never heard about Nature or Science. OTOH, there were several rather large leaps of faith in a recent Nature Neuroscience article that I would liked to have seen explained, and Nat. Neurosci is peer-reviewed.
My two conclusions from this:
* Peer review helps, in that open-source 'more eyeballs' sense. However, this does not mean good filtering cannot be done by a single individual or team, it just takes a lot more work on the behalf of a lot of very smart people.
* I have to disagree that members of the NAS have no peers. There are many many smart people in tangentially-related fields who could figure things out, particularly since the background tends to be well-known to everyone directly in that sub-field anyway--it's there to educate people in related fields. Furthermore, it's much easier to point out errors in a scientific argument than it is to forge a strong scientific argument, so even if members of the NAS were that much smarter than everyone else (possible, I suppose), it is unlikely that they truly have no one who could understand their argument and see flaws in it--and if there were truly no one, what would be the point of publishing their work in the first place if no one else could understand it?
--Ari
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 4
Absolute dreck gets published in "good" journals that have been "peer reviewed." The truth is that the old boys network is alive and well (and certainly not made up of just boys, but you get the idea). A very prominent researcher (nameless but I can assure you this is true - 1st hand) at Harvard won't submit to Neuron because they're sooooooo clubby, even though this person could (and does) publish anywhere.
So, although peer review is the best we've got, always remain a skeptic. Besides, if you don't try to shoot holes through others' work, what are you gonna say at journal club?? Gotta love the politics of personal destruction (topic for another thread, I suppose).
As an aside, I thought that PNAS changed their policy and send everything out for review?? No?
Hard to believe that science is still fun (for me, at least), considering how the game is played.
So, although peer review is the best we've got, always remain a skeptic. Besides, if you don't try to shoot holes through others' work, what are you gonna say at journal club?? Gotta love the politics of personal destruction (topic for another thread, I suppose).
As an aside, I thought that PNAS changed their policy and send everything out for review?? No?
Hard to believe that science is still fun (for me, at least), considering how the game is played.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 6,244
Primate said:
I agree 100%. Before I entered grad school, I was quite naive regarding publication quality. However, there are many realities that must be faced not the least of which are crappy articles in good journals. Manytimes, a researcher is forced to publish in a second-tier or lower journal to prevent being scooped by a rival lab. I know this was certainly the case in my experiences.
Though there is something nice about hearing your mentor say, "You know, you had better finish the draft of the manuscript quickly becuase Dr. XXX in YYY is almost finished with his."
At least it feels that you are working on something others would choose to research. 😉
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- Messages
- 207
- Reaction score
- 0
Primate said:
Track III does not demand any external review beyond this (unless requested by the editorial board):
"Track III. An Academy member may submit his or her own manuscripts for publication. Members' submissions must be accompanied by the name of knowledgeable colleague(s) who reviewed the paper, along with the review(s). "
Most papers go by Track I and II though. Track I has an author-selected academy member pick reviewers, and Track II is normal peer review.
1
13538
Apparently, 80% of papers submitted to PNAS are via Track II but only account for 40% of whats actually published! Surely Track I submissions/reviews are open to abuse..."quid pro quo" between academy members?? Or maybe I am just being cynical 😉
Btw, The Lancet peer review everything bar stuff like essays.
Btw, The Lancet peer review everything bar stuff like essays.
Similar threads
