I worry about self-archiving because on-line eprints are not refereed, as they are on-paper: What will become of peer review?
Again, a conflation of publishing and archiving, as well as of preprints and postprints : The author self-archives both pre-refereeing preprints and refereed postprints (etc.), and each is clearly tagged as such. The peer review continues to be performed by the referees, as it always was. Peer-review is medium-independent, and self-archiving in no way alters the peer review system. Part of the impetus for the groundless worry that self-archiving or open access are somehow at odds with peer review comes from “peer-review reformers,” who have somehow managed to link their completely independent reform agenda to the open-access agenda (probably because of a misinterpretation of the implications of self-archiving the unrefereed preprint). Those who wish to reform or replace peer review first need to go out and test their alternatives, to demosntrate whether or not they will generate a literature of a quality, reliability, and useability at least equal to the one we have now. But meanwhile,
Related Questions
- I worry about self-archiving because on-line eprints are not refereed, as they are on-paper: What will become of peer review?
- Do we need to submit research statements for peer review outputs only in the HCA cluster, or in all clusters?
- What are the possible determinations when a review request is sent to a physician peer reviewer?
