Talk:Scholarly peer review

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scholarly peer review article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

Open Access High‑importance

Scholarly 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Clarification needed

I moved the following section to here, because before reinsertion I think it needs clarification regarding what an "invited paper" is in this sense, and what component of the process (simply absence of peer review?) makes it more "valuable". Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A marketing professor argued that invited papers are more valuable because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.J. Scott Armstrong. "Reply by: J. Scott Armstrong, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, "Democracy Does Not Make Good Science: On Reforming Review Procedures for Management Science Journals,"" (PDF). Interfaces. 28: 88–91.

Result-blind peer review section

Thanks for the 10K addition of Result-blind peer review, Gwern. I find numerous issues with it unfortunately.

I think that these types of peer review should be added more carefully and critically, with time context and why some journals never went beyond piloting.

I have flagged basically ALL refs, which may be unstable / linkrot susceptible without complete citation and without archiving.

Adding inline external links is a no-no on WP.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think result-blind peer review is an excellent addition. It is a commonly proposed solution to a major problem in peer review, which has been independently reinvented a number of times over the past half-century, and which has gotten quite a bit of press attention since 2013 in the form of 'registered reports'. I could easily have added in another half-dozen media articles or journal editorials on it, but I felt I had dug up more than enough references to satisfy anyone about the notability.

As for the references, the title & author is enough to refind the papers easily, not to mention the fulltexts, but if you want to go through and add the appropriate citation templates, that'd be great.

Incidentally, you are incorrect about the external link. At least, as long as I've been editing, since 2004, it's always been acceptable to link inline an official page like OSF's Registered Reports page, and checking WP:EL, I don't see that that's ever changed. However, I don't want to make a fuss about it, so I've restored it as a reference. --Gwern (contribs) 04:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nice read

[1] not sure where to add summary... 212.200.65.108 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of dissent

I have tagged two sources as potentially unreliable. Fringe proponents do complain about peer review but the process effectively prevents them from corrupting science, making their claims akin to conspiracy theories. It is legitimate for mainstream journals to reject disproven claims of links between vaccines and autism. —Paleo Neonate – 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed three sources of questionable reliability that also had a conflict of interest about pushing fringe science and reworded a sentence to reflect extant sources. —Paleo Neonate – 05:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good to me. The text removed here might be salvageable, but it's been unsourced for so long that cutting it was a reasonable course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection if that part was restored (also not related to the sources I mentioned). —Paleo Neonate – 22:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuchenxu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of peer review

Hi, since the history section of this article applies to all forms of peer review, wouldn't it be better to integrate this in the main article peer review? I was looking for what Wikipedia has about this and almost overlooked the section in this article. Nina (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]