"Knowing their name will be published might change wording, or have people not want to be involved for human dynamic reasons."
Knowing their names will be published encourages reviewers to be responsible for their reviews. As both an author and reviewer I've seen reviews that are obviously biased, simply wrong, or have been written so carelessly that they're useless. I've commented on it when it happens, and editors have agreed with me.
There ARE advantages to anonymous review, but I think they're clearly outweighed by the disadvantages.
"And while they learn to critically think and apply the methods of science to the area of expertise, doesn't mean they can apply it to anything outside their expertise."
In that case you've got a problem, but it's not journal publishers.
In all the universities I've attended/worked at (all in Canada), you can walk into a university library, sit down at a computer and have access to all the electronic journals the university subscribes to. Actually, at some it doesn't even have to be in the library - any computer with a university IP address works fine.
I grew up in a very small town a six hour drive from the nearest university. The town library certainly didn't carry any scientific journals but if I wanted an article they could send a request to a university that had it, and someone would photocopy the article and send it. Free.
So only people with degrees would be allowed to publish? I'll let some other Slashdotter berate you for that one. I'm sure they'll provide you with a few examples of non-degreed people who have done some pretty valuable work.
"You don't need to actually be a practicing scientist to know how science works."
It does usually help to be someone who works in a field to know how that field works. Your own knowledge of working science seems to be a little bit Slashdot/pop media influenced. Most scientists LOVE to have valid results that are not the same as what's gone before. You don't get much credit for confirming what's already been shown. A major criticism of current publishing is that confirmatory studies aren't published enough.
If you'd like to actually link to one of these studies you mention then I can address it specifically.
Your last paragraph... scientists are human. So what? That doesn't make you automatically right.
During a long run like a marathon, and after shorter ones, you want to make sure you're taking in electrolytes as well as water, but drinking tap instead of distilled water is definitely NOT going to do that for you. Many runners use some kind of sports drink instead of or in addition to water, or drink water plus eating gels or bars with lots of salts in them.
The difference between tap water and distilled is negligible in terms or electrolytes gained or lost through drinking it.
Yes, the review process does need some tweaking. Reviewers' comments should be made public, with their names attached, after the review process is over. I'd also like to see options for a more interactive (but still anonymous while it's happening) review process, so reviewers can ask questions and have them answered more quickly. Journals, including the big ones, are experimenting with these things. Nature has been introducing several new review options along these lines over the last few years.
Journals and peer review can benefit from updating to take advantage of new technology, but that's a far cry from tossing the whole system and implementing a centralized, one-system-to-rule-them-all social media type thing like some are suggesting, and it's certainly not clear what the ideal system is.
"Well, we would be restricting it to scientists so the spam should be limited."
How? How do you define a scientist?
"Furthermore there are a lot of easy methods for filtering work out. Come on... we've all used about a million social networking sites at this point. There are WAYS to filter content in an unbiased way."
I'm not sure social networking sites are what you want to use as an example. Facebook is unbiased? Slashdot? Even Google has been investigated for bias in search rankings.
"Another issue here is scientific group think. This is something science has been prone to for centuries. Most scientists believe something is impossible or that the world works a given way. A few people on the side protest and are ignored for a time and then something happens that discredits the accepted model and science changes."
That's not really how it works. Most scientists accept a given model although they're well aware of the problems with it. Then someone comes along with a new model that might have some advantages. After enough evidence is gathered and (usually) the new model is refined, it gains acceptance until it is the new standard. This process is good.
Because all the authors are scientists who want to do science, not run a (pro bono) publishing company or social media site.
The whole idea of enforcing algorithmic rules for referee and author reputation is very tricky. How do you treat new authors? How do you avoid whoever is in charge tweaking the algorithm for their benefit?
"Thus degrading the quality of the journal and after about 10 years people will learn to treat it as one of the trashier neighborhoods. The problem is the impact (factor and public) that the article will have in the transition period."
Sure. If you want to ruin a journal over the long term and you don't care about the quality of the science that gets published in the meantime, it's a great way to go. Most scientists DO care about the quality of the science that gets published though.
People don't get any significant amount of electrolytes from drinking water. So it doesn't matter the situation. Any potable water, fresh, distilled or ultra distilled, it's all the same as far as your body is concerned.
Ah, making stuff up on Slashdot. Pure water might pull a little bit of salt from surrounding tissue. It's no big deal. It quickly becomes not-so-pure water. Any drinkable water is considerably purer than your bodily fluids and so there will be osmotic pressure.
I've drunk multi-distilled water and it's fine. I grew up drinking ordinary distilled water because our town water was so hard, and it's fine. Except for tasting slightly different, there's no noticeable effect.
Oil molecules are MUCH larger than water molecules, so conventional filters would probably work better. You would't have to deal with your filter getting clogged up with salts in addition to oil.
Your history needs a little work. The US was founded as a secular nation. The religion wasn't injected back into your government until after WWII (except for "in God we trust" on coins). So unless you're counting 18th century and prior Europe and/or the post-1956 US as "when we had some morals (based on the bible)", you've got a problem. Personally burning heretics and arresting people for allegedly associating with people who might think communism is a neat idea isn't what I'd consider "[not nearly] as nuts."
Of course, most of our morality, including most of what's in the bible, considerably predates it. Particularly the new testament. Speaking of which, if the old testament was "washed away," why do you keep quoting it?
Good one. I also enjoy the bit about mixed fabrics. Jehovah's witnesses love it when you ask to check the tag in their shirts. My favourite though, is Exodus 21:17 (a commandment!):
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
Which is repeated (for emphasis, presumably) in Leviticus 20:9, and Jesus doesn't seem to be particularly against it in Matthew 15:4, which puts it in the old AND new testaments.
A commandment to commit honour killings in the bible. Personally, if I didn't have a problem using the bible as a moral guide before that one, I certainly would after.
"What do you think the responses were going to be?"
Apparently there were quite a few yeses because Italy did quite poorly in the rankings, and also fell considerably year-over-year.
"US journalists might or might not throw dirt at Bloomberg, but in this kind of anonymous survey, their response is likely to be the equivalent of "we here at ____ are not oppressed and are totally rational and independent, but the journalists over at _______ are pressured and biased."
I see, so on an anonymous survey Italian journalists will lie to cover for their bosses but in the USA the truth will come out because of journalists throwing their colleagues under the bus?
The journalists were arrested while covering a story, so it does count. Even if it wasn't part of an organized campaign, cops arresting journalists because they can't be bothered, or haven't been trained to check credentials is a bad thing.
Interesting example. In Canada you are required, by law, to report any incident of child abuse to the police. There's no question of whether you "should have done more" or not.
"If you think that the US is less free than Europe, you have an absurdly idyllic idea of what Europe is like."
I haven't lived in either, but as a foreigner to both who's travels to both reasonably frequently, there's one I try to avoid whenever possible (going there starts with invariably being held at the border for the crime of having a common name), and one I quite enjoy visiting. Care to guess which is which?
Slashdot Mirror
"Knowing their name will be published might change wording, or have people not want to be involved for human dynamic reasons."
Knowing their names will be published encourages reviewers to be responsible for their reviews. As both an author and reviewer I've seen reviews that are obviously biased, simply wrong, or have been written so carelessly that they're useless. I've commented on it when it happens, and editors have agreed with me.
There ARE advantages to anonymous review, but I think they're clearly outweighed by the disadvantages.
"And while they learn to critically think and apply the methods of science to the area of expertise, doesn't mean they can apply it to anything outside their expertise."
I don't see how that's relevant.
In that case you've got a problem, but it's not journal publishers.
In all the universities I've attended/worked at (all in Canada), you can walk into a university library, sit down at a computer and have access to all the electronic journals the university subscribes to. Actually, at some it doesn't even have to be in the library - any computer with a university IP address works fine.
I grew up in a very small town a six hour drive from the nearest university. The town library certainly didn't carry any scientific journals but if I wanted an article they could send a request to a university that had it, and someone would photocopy the article and send it. Free.
So only people with degrees would be allowed to publish? I'll let some other Slashdotter berate you for that one. I'm sure they'll provide you with a few examples of non-degreed people who have done some pretty valuable work.
"You don't need to actually be a practicing scientist to know how science works."
It does usually help to be someone who works in a field to know how that field works. Your own knowledge of working science seems to be a little bit Slashdot/pop media influenced. Most scientists LOVE to have valid results that are not the same as what's gone before. You don't get much credit for confirming what's already been shown. A major criticism of current publishing is that confirmatory studies aren't published enough.
If you'd like to actually link to one of these studies you mention then I can address it specifically.
Your last paragraph... scientists are human. So what? That doesn't make you automatically right.
Maybe. The NEJM has a habit of mostly publishing the results of large clinical trials. It's drop in quality might be due to something else....
Resolution?
Aw, do you see the letters "hom" and automatically think homosexual? That's cute.
During a long run like a marathon, and after shorter ones, you want to make sure you're taking in electrolytes as well as water, but drinking tap instead of distilled water is definitely NOT going to do that for you. Many runners use some kind of sports drink instead of or in addition to water, or drink water plus eating gels or bars with lots of salts in them.
The difference between tap water and distilled is negligible in terms or electrolytes gained or lost through drinking it.
Yes, the review process does need some tweaking. Reviewers' comments should be made public, with their names attached, after the review process is over. I'd also like to see options for a more interactive (but still anonymous while it's happening) review process, so reviewers can ask questions and have them answered more quickly. Journals, including the big ones, are experimenting with these things. Nature has been introducing several new review options along these lines over the last few years.
Journals and peer review can benefit from updating to take advantage of new technology, but that's a far cry from tossing the whole system and implementing a centralized, one-system-to-rule-them-all social media type thing like some are suggesting, and it's certainly not clear what the ideal system is.
"Well, we would be restricting it to scientists so the spam should be limited."
How? How do you define a scientist?
"Furthermore there are a lot of easy methods for filtering work out. Come on... we've all used about a million social networking sites at this point. There are WAYS to filter content in an unbiased way."
I'm not sure social networking sites are what you want to use as an example. Facebook is unbiased? Slashdot? Even Google has been investigated for bias in search rankings.
"Another issue here is scientific group think. This is something science has been prone to for centuries. Most scientists believe something is impossible or that the world works a given way. A few people on the side protest and are ignored for a time and then something happens that discredits the accepted model and science changes."
That's not really how it works. Most scientists accept a given model although they're well aware of the problems with it. Then someone comes along with a new model that might have some advantages. After enough evidence is gathered and (usually) the new model is refined, it gains acceptance until it is the new standard. This process is good.
Because all the authors are scientists who want to do science, not run a (pro bono) publishing company or social media site.
The whole idea of enforcing algorithmic rules for referee and author reputation is very tricky. How do you treat new authors? How do you avoid whoever is in charge tweaking the algorithm for their benefit?
"Thus degrading the quality of the journal and after about 10 years people will learn to treat it as one of the trashier neighborhoods. The problem is the impact (factor and public) that the article will have in the transition period."
Sure. If you want to ruin a journal over the long term and you don't care about the quality of the science that gets published in the meantime, it's a great way to go. Most scientists DO care about the quality of the science that gets published though.
"I would love to read physics papers"
Go for it.
Because the food in the fridge and the electricity or gas your stove uses is free, right?
Who apparently have lots of unused spectrum and so, by this reasoning, should have very low data rates!
Oh god, the raindrops! They burn!
You can drink pure water. It's okay.
People don't get any significant amount of electrolytes from drinking water. So it doesn't matter the situation. Any potable water, fresh, distilled or ultra distilled, it's all the same as far as your body is concerned.
Ah, making stuff up on Slashdot. Pure water might pull a little bit of salt from surrounding tissue. It's no big deal. It quickly becomes not-so-pure water. Any drinkable water is considerably purer than your bodily fluids and so there will be osmotic pressure.
I've drunk multi-distilled water and it's fine. I grew up drinking ordinary distilled water because our town water was so hard, and it's fine. Except for tasting slightly different, there's no noticeable effect.
Ah, a homeopath.
Oil molecules are MUCH larger than water molecules, so conventional filters would probably work better. You would't have to deal with your filter getting clogged up with salts in addition to oil.
Your history needs a little work. The US was founded as a secular nation. The religion wasn't injected back into your government until after WWII (except for "in God we trust" on coins). So unless you're counting 18th century and prior Europe and/or the post-1956 US as "when we had some morals (based on the bible)", you've got a problem. Personally burning heretics and arresting people for allegedly associating with people who might think communism is a neat idea isn't what I'd consider "[not nearly] as nuts."
Of course, most of our morality, including most of what's in the bible, considerably predates it. Particularly the new testament. Speaking of which, if the old testament was "washed away," why do you keep quoting it?
Good one. I also enjoy the bit about mixed fabrics. Jehovah's witnesses love it when you ask to check the tag in their shirts. My favourite though, is Exodus 21:17 (a commandment!):
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
Which is repeated (for emphasis, presumably) in Leviticus 20:9, and Jesus doesn't seem to be particularly against it in Matthew 15:4, which puts it in the old AND new testaments.
A commandment to commit honour killings in the bible. Personally, if I didn't have a problem using the bible as a moral guide before that one, I certainly would after.
"What do you think the responses were going to be?"
Apparently there were quite a few yeses because Italy did quite poorly in the rankings, and also fell considerably year-over-year.
"US journalists might or might not throw dirt at Bloomberg, but in this kind of anonymous survey, their response is likely to be the equivalent of "we here at ____ are not oppressed and are totally rational and independent, but the journalists over at _______ are pressured and biased."
I see, so on an anonymous survey Italian journalists will lie to cover for their bosses but in the USA the truth will come out because of journalists throwing their colleagues under the bus?
The journalists were arrested while covering a story, so it does count. Even if it wasn't part of an organized campaign, cops arresting journalists because they can't be bothered, or haven't been trained to check credentials is a bad thing.
Interesting example. In Canada you are required, by law, to report any incident of child abuse to the police. There's no question of whether you "should have done more" or not.
"If you think that the US is less free than Europe, you have an absurdly idyllic idea of what Europe is like."
I haven't lived in either, but as a foreigner to both who's travels to both reasonably frequently, there's one I try to avoid whenever possible (going there starts with invariably being held at the border for the crime of having a common name), and one I quite enjoy visiting. Care to guess which is which?