This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Peer review is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
Peer review is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There are many peer review articles that discuss the importance of citations of peer reviewed articles. So a new a section is needed. Albertttt (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. That's why we have several articles about citation analysis, impact analysis, etc. This article, however, is about peer review, and citations are not generally seen as "peer review" (not even "post-publication"). So that new section is not needed here and adequately covered elsewhere. --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - this material is not relevant to this article. In fact Albertttt has already contributed to Citation impact. andy (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
"See also" seems to the place to put it then. Albertttt (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As Crusio said earlier citations don't really have anything to do with peer review, so it would be misleading to direct people to the citation impact article. andy (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Citations, in drafts of peer reviewed articles, help determine who will conduct the peer review.Albertttt (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That should be in the "recruiting referees" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertttt (talk • contribs) 12:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As you say yourself, that is something completely different. Also, I doubt that there is more than some anecdotal evidence for that (even though I agree that this may happen: if an editor does not directly think of suitable reviewers, it's easy to look through the list of references, because that will mostly be people working on the same or similar subject). And my personal experience as an editor suggests that it is the vast minority of articles where this happens (after all, editors are selected for their knowledge of a field and the people working in it). --Crusio (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: are you saying that the fact that peer reviewed articles must cite other peer review articles don't belong to the peer review article ?Albertttt (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I don't understand your comment. I thought you were referring to "recruiting reviewers". Apart from that, peer-reviewed articles don't have to cite other peer-reviewed articles. they can cite non-reviewed stuff (newspaper articles, for instance) and can even not cite anything at all (although that is so unusual that I cannot think of any example -at least of a post 1960 paper). However, whether or not peer-reviewed articles need to cite other peer-reviewed articles is, again, not something that belongs here, but in articles on academic articles themselves. This article is about the process of peer review, not about the things that are reviewed. --Crusio (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a section on corruption in anonymous reviewing by journals. Theft of intellectual property through this reviewing process is untraceable and systemic. Likewise, unscientific obstruction of publication by rivals, usually based on such unsubstantiated opinion as is never allowed in articles under review.Bourdillona (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You'll need reliable sources for that. I doubt those exist, especially if you talk about this kind of abuse being "systemic". For my own publications, I have never experienced this kind of abuse and almost all reviewers were courteous and gave constructive criticisms. --Crusio (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't need those sources - you do. The mafia uses a secretive honor system to the same effect. Many, if not most, scientists have experienced the theft and it has been often discussed. If anonymous reviewing is not corrupt, then you have to say why it is not. Journals which are not transparent are not scientific. Editors do not normally respond to authors' complaints. They use stone-walling stock phrases such as "the referee has given his opinion that your paper should not be published and therefore I must reject it." There is no science in anonymous, false opinions given for whatever motive, without justification or oversight. For the mediocre, it's fine. Bourdillona (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's not the way things work (here or in real life). If you accuse somebody or something it is up to you to prove the accusation, not up to the accused to prove innocence. --Crusio (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't accuse anyone. Please be real. Look for a moment at the system. You give no justification for your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourdillona (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you do. "Theft", "mafia", "corrupt", "not transparent", "stone-walling", etc. Prove it and it can be in the article. In my experience and that of all researchers that I know, the kind of things you mention are (very rare) exceptions and only the mediocre complain that it is otherwise. --Crusio (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You don't name the person that I am supposed to have accused. One problem is that it is precisely because of anonymity that these things happen. It is impossible to reverse them. I have previously cited a book on this issue. As I remember you misrepresented it and deleted the citation with the result that it was subsequently misquoted. From my point of view the point is made and the case is closed.Bourdillona (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of it myself directly, but theft does happen - quoting from a letter on the British Medical Journal: "Furthermore, it is not unknown for original ideas to be purloined while turning down a paper." . I would simply expect that reviewers of high-impact journals wouldn't risk their career doing that. However, Bourdillona, for everything on Wikipedia there are rules about what you can write, which Crusio linked. Basically, there must be reliable sources. For "obstruction of opinion by rivals", that's already discussed in Open peer review, with appropriate citations and studies about it.--Blaisorblade (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
@Christian75: I am unclear as to why you reverted the merge, when it has support on the talk page. Although you highlighted in your edit summary that the article will need to be rewritten, I do not see how a complete reversal of the merge is conductive to this goal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear @NickPenguin:, @Christian75: and @Randykitty:: At the moment the contents of "Open peer review" has disappeared completely. Could you please decide what to do first and only then edit the pages?--RolfSander (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said, the merge was reverted, and it appears to have been partially restored. I have fully restored the merge. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)