Peer-Reviewed Research Over The Web

bhoman writes "The San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) has an article today about Stanford biochemist Patrick O. Brown, who helped develop low-cost DNA microarrays for gene research. He is seeking $20M to start a foundation that would fund peer-review of research papers and then make them available for free over the web, thereby avoiding the high-cost of subscriptions common in existing research publications. Predictably, some publishers seem to be warning that their publishing model is hard to improve upon. The article mentions that a previous effort by Brown and others, The Public Library of Science garnered the signatures of 30,000 supporters, but then implies that it basically failed, suggesting that academics need the journals more than vice versa. Sounds like Brown's idea is exactly what the web is made for."

Comments

peer review has outlived its utility

[tps12]

I will probably get modded down for proposing this, but it seems to me that the notion of "peer review" for academic research has no longer ceased to be of much use, but now may actually act as a disincentive to innovation and discover in academia.

The peer review system dates back to the turn of the century, when leftist ideals based on serving the greatest "public good" enjoyed a surge in popularity. The theory was that all of mankind should be able to offer suggestions and reap the rewards of any research done in university and business contexts. And, for quite some time, it worked as planned. As long as scientists were chosen (and to a degree self-selected) for their devotion to public wellbeing, peer review created a kind of egalitarian pool of discovery and invention.

These days, however, most, if not all research, is performed with profit as a significant motivation. This isn't worse, but it is different. In today's modern age, peer review simply serves to weaken the profit potential of any given line of inquiry. So researchers hesitate to introduce their most promising results to the public. As a result, scientific journals tend to be increasingly filled with uninteresting and dead-end research. In the worst case, good research (that would benefit society as a whole as well as generating profit) is passed by altogether, because no one wants to break his or her back on something that won't pay off, thanks to peer review.

Today's capitalist economy has no place for peer review. Hopefully, we can leave it behind with labor unions, as a good idea, necessary and beneficial at its inception, that has outlived its useful lifetime. It is an anachronism, and should be met with disdain by the research community.