Pitfalls of Peer Rerview

In 2006, Nature tried an experiment. The journal receives about 10,000 manuscripts a year and sends 40% of them out for traditional peer review. In the trial, the editors asked authors if they would also submit their paper for open peer review where any scientists could leave signed comments. 71 authors agreed.

The journal promoted the experiment heavily on their website, through e-mail blasts, and with targeted invitations to scholars in the field. After four months, they reviewed the results. nature05535-i2Despite sizable web traffic to the site, 33 papers received no comments, and the most heavily commented on paper received only 10 replies.

Nor did the editors find the comments influential in their decisions whether to publish. They found that although many scientists approved of the idea of open review, very few would perform it.

Their experiment demonstrates both the promise and the pitfalls of social media. It opens up the possibility for dialogue, but it depends on self-motivated users to enrich the content.

Tags: , ,

15 Responses to “Pitfalls of Peer Rerview”

  1. thanks for visiting my blog, keep posting, keep adding value.

  2. This is a nice post. I´ve encountered this post several times this week searching for something alike. Now is in my news box Keep up the great work!

  3. obviously like your web site but you need to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to tell the truth nevertheless I will certainly come back again.

  4. Nadav says:

    What is sizable web traffic? Is it 100 visitors to those papers, or thousands per day? Also, did the traffic spread evenly or concentrated mainly on certain pages?

    People comment on what they see. If they don’t see certain pages, they just won’t comment.


  5. I think this is among the most significant info for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The website style is great, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

  6. Wikia… Wika linked to this website…

  7. Perhaps you would be interested in the project coming up, Day in the Life of Digital Humanities. We have about 100 participants around the world who will blog a day’s worth of activities they do as digital humanists. The group have already posted answers to the question, How do you define Humanities Computing?

  8. Le Fohl says:

    I think what you composed was actually very logical. However, what about this? suppose you were to create a killer headline? I am not saying your content is not good, but suppose you added a title to maybe get a person’s attention? I mean Pitfalls of Peer Rerview Faculty Development and Diversity is kinda boring. You should peek at Yahoo’s front page and watch how they create article titles to grab people interested. You might add a video or a picture or two to grab readers interested about everything’ve written. In my opinion, it might make your posts a little bit more interesting.

  9. Where have you ever found the resource meant for this post? Brilliant reading through I have subscribed for your site feed.

  10. Very interestingtopic. In addition- I was searching on your www RSS feed or email subscription. Have You got any?

  11. I may turn into coming back once more for virtually any fresh new report you are producing

  12. I have learn a few good stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I wonder how so much attempt you place to make this type of fantastic informative web site.

  13. Clifford Durr says:

    Good day. Very cool web site!! Man .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally…I’m satisfied to locate so much helpful information here within the post. Thank you for sharing..

  14. I am not real excellent with English but I get hold this really leisurely to read.

  15. Isaac Bevly says:

    so what can I really do? What can I believe that? Some guidelines would be drastically appreciated.