Observation about OPEN EVERYTHING!!!!1111!! Revolutionaries

Feb 21 2013 Published by under Conduct of Science, Debate and Discussion, FWDAOTI

They sure do get huffy when they themselves are the ones being subjected to open peer review.

13 responses so far

  • Did you forget a link to an particular example you were thinking of, or is this just a general observation?

  • drugmonkey says:

    I did not forget, no

  • jbmohler says:

    It is handy that no specific examples means that this post is effectively closed to all review altogether. 🙂

  • Drugmonkey says:

    if you find it hard to review than you lack imagination

  • Drugmonkey says:

    but given posts in the past few days it should be obvious I'm talking about ubiome and Perlstain

  • Open peer review is totally UNFAIR and UNKIND!!!!

  • Drugmonkey says:

    agreed. so is closed peer review. jeez, haven't these people seen 3rd reviewer Downfall mashup?

  • Dave says:

    I assume the misspelling of Perlstein's name was deliberate LOL?

  • AcademicLurker says:

    The post by drugmonkey et al. addresses a question of current interest in the science blogging community and it's conclusion is well supported by innuendo.

    H0wever, several of the figures - specifically the ads on the sidebar - are unnecessary and should be removed. Additionally, the comments, while of some interest, should be removed to Supplementary Data.

    The impact of the post is moderate, and it is perhaps more appropriate for a more specialized journal than for Proceedings of BSDGlamorhoundz.

    Decision: reject

  • kant says:

    hahahahaa... i agree

  • Comradde PhysioProffe says:

    It's almost as if they only want hear about how magical wagical totes awesome they are, and descend into a belligerent snit at the slightest sign of anything less. But that can't be possible.

  • drugmonkey says:

    No, that would be ridiculous Comradde, I totally agree.

  • Dave says:

    All this stuff about IRBs is classic 'moat-building' behavior by a threatened elite. Seriously? How did this stuff threaten the health or well-being of the informed participants? Since when have you, DM, been a cheerleader for bureaucracy?

    I hope you hold yourself to the same standards next time you post an online poll, or, god forbid, ask someone whether they want a beer without first informing of them that the consequences of saying yes will expose them to possibly addictive substances strongly associated with significant health risks.

    As for criticism of Open Access publishers... Funny to hear that from a blogger. If you really believe that, shouldn't you become a columnist for some firewall-restricted *real* magazine? Or are you acknowledging that we folks here are all just cranks writing electronic graffiti?

Leave a Reply