Welcome to the Computing Research Repository (CoRR), sponsored by ACM, the arXiv.org e-Print archive, NCSTRL (Networked Computer Science Technical Reference Library), and AAAI. CoRR allows researchers to search, browse and download papers through its online repository. CoRR is available to all members of of the community at no charge.
Connexions is:
a place to view and share educational material made of small knowledge chunks called modules that can be organized as courses, books, reports, etc. Anyone may view or contribute:
- authors create and collaborate
- instructors rapidly build and share custom collections
- learners find and explore content
If you think research and knowledge are as vital to humanity as air, water, bread and freedom, then you probably know what Peer Evaluation is about.
Peer Evaluation is about giving Open Access to your primary data, working papers, articles, media and having them all reviewed and discussed by your peers. Peer evaluation is a strong supporter of qualified peer reviewing and is, in that respect, a valuable supplement, inspiration and hub for peer reviewed journals and publications. Finally, Peer Evaluation is an independent and community interest project.
Webmed Limited, UK is owned and managed by Kamal Mahawar (Consultant General Surgeon in UK), Deepak Kejariwal (Consultant Gastroenterologist in UK), and Manish Jain (Management Consultant in UK). We are an independent group with no links to the existing players in the pharmaceutical, publishing or any other industry.
We believe that biomedical publishing has not been able to keep pace with advancing technology. Biomedical publishing needs radical changes to empower authors, reviewers and readers. We therefore would like to introduce a novel method of publication without prior peer review followed by author driven post publication peer review. Our services are currently free for authors as well as for readers.
Open Access (OA) advocates argue that PLoS ONE is now the largest scholarly journal in the world. Its parent organisation — Public Library of Science (PLoS) — was co-founded in 2001 by Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus. What does the history of PLoS tell us about the development of PLoS ONE? What does the success of PLoS ONE tell us about OA? And what does the current rush by other publishers to clone PLoS ONE tell us about the future of scholarly communication?
It is often said that peer review is one of the pillars of scientific research. It is also well known that peer review doesn't actually do its job very well, and, every few years, people like me start writing articles about alternatives to peer review. This isn't one of those rants. Instead, I'm going to focus on something that is probably less well known: peer review actually has two jobs. It's used to provide minimal scrutiny for new scientific results, and to act as a gatekeeper for funding agencies.
What I would like to do here is outline some of the differences between peer review in these two jobs and the strengths and weaknesses of peer review in each case. This is not a rant against peer review, nor should it be—I have been pretty successful in both publications and grant applications over the last couple of years. But I think it's worth exploring the idea that peer review functions much better in the case of deciding the value of scientific research than it does when acting as a gatekeeper for scientific funding.
Just a small number of bad referees can significantly undermine the ability of the peer-review system to select the best scientific papers. That is according to a pair of complex systems researchers in Austria who have modelled an academic publishing system and showed that human foibles can have a dramatic effect on the quality of published science.
Anyone who thinks peer review is a process of nudges and winks from your mates has never faced the harsh reality of having your work pulled apart, says Jenny Rohn (who has).