tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post3831770353372560141..comments2024-03-26T21:47:45.016+00:00Comments on MEI's Barry Wills: Peer-review. Is it outdated?MEIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-21714385414784496312012-10-30T09:58:35.720+00:002012-10-30T09:58:35.720+00:00Dear Sir,
Thanks for your response. True publishi...Dear Sir,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. True publishing conference papers after peer review is also Post Publication Open Review. As such I am not against peer review but I plead for transparency.<br /><br /> It is very difficult to change the mind sets of peers. One example is the rejection by peers, when I said (http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/may102001/1113.pdf ) that Phosphate Rock in fine size along with Organic Manure (PROM) works as efficiently as Di Ammonium Phosphate even in alkaline soils. Now (2012) PROM is an approved (http://www.promsociety.net/ ) fertilizer in India.<br /><br />What is proved experimentally will stand if peers agree or not.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />DMR Sekhar<br />DMR Sekharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02208580083994542032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-47181966277367981072012-10-30T08:39:50.564+00:002012-10-30T08:39:50.564+00:00Dear DMR. As editor of Minerals Engineering, I hav...Dear DMR. As editor of Minerals Engineering, I have been involved with peer-review for 25 years. Despite its limitations I think it is a very effective system. The method that you suggest above is used by MEI to some extent. All MEI Conferences require draft papers, which are used as discussion documents at the meetings. After a conference, authors are invited to submit their final papers to Minerals Engineering for peer-review, and for possible publication in the many special issues that we have.<br /><br />The MEI blog is not an option as you suggest. Could I clarify that, although I am editor, Minerals Engineering is not an MEI publication? It is published by Elsevier, so any change in reviewing policy would be in their hands.<br /><br />Thanks for your suggestion.MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-51431364901200806192012-10-29T18:08:51.524+00:002012-10-29T18:08:51.524+00:00I think that the present process of peer review is...I think that the present process of peer review is an out dated one. In the days of internet, Post Publication Open Review (PPOR) must be followed. Let an author publish/submit his article any where on the net (for example MEI Blog) and then submit it to a journal. The editorial board of the journal may take a look at the work and if found fit they may ask the reviewers to act upon. If selected the journal may publish in the printed version. The author himself may get his article on the net, reviewed. This is a quick process. Is MEI ready to test?<br /><br />[1] CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 98, NO.9, 10 MAY 2010<br />[2] Open Review of Science Publications, Accountability in Research, 17: 1-7, 2010 <br />DMR Sekharhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02208580083994542032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-50844362176121070642012-05-30T09:25:02.312+01:002012-05-30T09:25:02.312+01:00This is also of interest: http://www.guardian.co.u...This is also of interest: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/25/attacking-publishers-open-access-sustainableMEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-43164715659357801272012-05-28T13:39:44.544+01:002012-05-28T13:39:44.544+01:00See Elsevier's response to the peer-review deb...See Elsevier's response to the peer-review debate at <br />http://www.min-eng.com/journal/65.htmlMEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-91827310068956958292012-05-23T01:59:07.422+01:002012-05-23T01:59:07.422+01:00In my opinion usually the mineral processing area ...In my opinion usually the mineral processing area is very conservative and it is difficult to introduce new ideas and unconventional methods. In this regard I have had bad experiences and reviews sometimes do not delve into the issues. It is easy to reject new ideas, especially when they are far from being applicable in plants.Luis Cisternasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-42463039646778869522012-05-21T09:33:05.585+01:002012-05-21T09:33:05.585+01:00I think your comments are very useful Stephen, and...I think your comments are very useful Stephen, and I appreciate them, as they have highlighted something which I was not particularly aware of. I hope that this does lead to some discussion, and I will bring it to the attention of the Minerals Engineers LinkedIn group. There I would invite you to air your suggestion on the preliminary peer-review process, which I think is interesting and worthy. I know that some highly reputable research institutes submit all their papers to an internal review procedure before sending to journals, and this is of great help to editors.MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-13716317530503294212012-05-21T09:16:26.297+01:002012-05-21T09:16:26.297+01:00I'm not quite clear what you are saying here S...I'm not quite clear what you are saying here Stephen, but I considered your original comment worthy of further debate, so I opened it up early this morning, before your comment above. Maybe you would like to comment on the 21st May posting?MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-27426497815881966092012-05-21T09:12:32.814+01:002012-05-21T09:12:32.814+01:00Last comment
Clearly I have written negative comm...Last comment<br /><br />Clearly I have written negative comments. Yet I do think there is an alternative, and it is one that I implemented for many years (but not in mineral processing).<br /><br />One pre-submits the paper to true 'peer reviewers' and then after responding to their comments submits to the journal with a list and signature of the reviewers who have already commented. The journal should then decide whether to accept the paper straight off or send for additional review. Such a process would significantly decrease the work-load of all those involed: reviewers, editors, and authors; and would lead to what jounrals should be: a method for exchange of original research methods and concepts.Stephen Gayhttp://www.mathsmet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-35974398765514167332012-05-21T09:06:19.114+01:002012-05-21T09:06:19.114+01:00I understand that there are limitations in the pee...I understand that there are limitations in the peer process. Yet in the opening statement people were asked to give an opinion. I regret giving my opinion.<br /><br />I do think the opinions I gave have been exagerated; yet that was my error for lacking sensitivity in my comments.<br /><br />The inference is that my experiences and those of my colleagues are are not consistent with others, so if others find the review process fair and reasonable all the best...<br /><br /><br />It should also be stated that the opening comment posed by Mineral Engineering was general, and did not specifically refer to Minerals Engineering. <br /><br />I am abit perplexed that the issue of peer review was opened up in 'general' terms, and then my comments were criticised because I wrote 'generally'.<br /><br /> <br />I do agree with the comment that the Editors of specific journals are actually the main factor in determining whether the peer review process is functional (in the sense of being fair).Stephen Gayhttp://www.mathsmet.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-76770563342669214182012-04-12T08:23:39.124+01:002012-04-12T08:23:39.124+01:00Sorry Stephen but I have to disagree with you on t...Sorry Stephen but I have to disagree with you on this. The peer-review system certainly does have its faults but it is not a shambles.<br /><br />You have obviously had some bad experiences with journals, but I think many academics might find it a little insulting to be regarded intellectually inferior and incapable of reviewing your work. The same applies to your generalisations on Editors.MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-35287869343052629272012-04-12T01:25:19.043+01:002012-04-12T01:25:19.043+01:00The peer review process is a total shambles.
It i...The peer review process is a total shambles.<br /><br />It is OK if you are using conventional approaches, but if your methods are new - particularly using advanced mathematics - it is almost impossible to get a fair review.<br /><br />Further, the editors tend to directly send your papers to your competitors. When it is obvious that the reviewer is incompetent the Editor tends to do nothing. That is the process is more important than the outcome.<br /><br />At this stage I generally don't bother sending papers to journals, as the 'leading academics' are so far intellectually behind it is impossible for them to understand simple concepts.<br /><br /><br />I can outline the 'simple' concepts reviewers have not been able to understand - but it is quite appalling.Stephen Gaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-91679677381236546572011-06-09T14:35:52.955+01:002011-06-09T14:35:52.955+01:00The peer review process is good, but can present p...The peer review process is good, but can present problems depending on the significance of the research. <br /><br />1. If an article is accepted for review then one can assume the editor felt the article was suitable for the journal. Yet sometimes the ruling on the article is that it is not suitable. So why take 3 months evaluating the paper in the first place.<br /><br />2. People in the field are general the ones reviewing the paper. If your paper is successful in explain a problem they have been trying to solve under their research program then it is likely your paper would be rejected. How can you get an honest peer-review from a competitor who has a financial interest in saying you are wrong?<br /><br />3. Example: My paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a physics conference. The work was rejected by some journals who knew the work was correct. The work successfully showed the link between subatomic structures and the motion of binary stars. It is the biggest discovery in physics and those who are charged with bringing this to the public avoided the paper.<br /><br />Conclusion. The peer-review process is good when the journals are in support of science. The peer-review process is not good when the journal is actually the voice the its advisory boards universities. String Theorist hated my research even through they knew it was correct and the journals they control reject the paper falsely. The paper still got published but has not received the press it deserves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-1898277347640859302011-04-11T09:14:27.361+01:002011-04-11T09:14:27.361+01:00My comments as a reviewer are as follows;
I sinc...My comments as a reviewer are as follows;<br /><br /> I sincerely believe that all reviewers have the sound intention to complete a review in a timely manner. Unfortunately there are a number of issue around this<br /> 1. Reviewer's time commitments<br /> One of the major drawbacks of the review system is that in most instances it is a 'part time' occupation for the reviewer. They have a full time job that in this day and age consumes a lot of their spare time as well. I have found over my career that unless one has at least an 80% total work time commitment to a project/task then deadlines will suffer. Unfortunately having dedicated reviewers does nor seem to be an option consequently late reviews will be an outcome. Paying reviewers may help but I doubt it will. <br /><br /> 2. The quality of the manuscript.<br /> Excellent papers do no take long to review. As the 'quality' diminishes so more time is required to complete the task. One can go down the path of rejecting more submissions however my view is that part of a reviewers function is to help mentor and encourage new researchers with their submission. Where else will they learn and improve?<br />Best Regards<br />Rob Dunne, Newmont Mining, AustraliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-70078738341021140802011-04-11T03:15:33.084+01:002011-04-11T03:15:33.084+01:00This fascinating dialogue tells the tale of intens...This fascinating dialogue tells the tale of intense interest in the quality of our publications. Willingness hampered by time impost are common themes. I am actively training my mid-level staff to take over reviewing - by reviewing their reviews.<br />I absolutely agree with reviewing being a form of mentoring especially for younger isolated researchers. It also forces me to keep up to date with the literature.<br />I think we should be harsher on poor structure and weak content - sending it back for improvement without trawling through editing it ourselves - which takes hours.<br />Downgrading to a technical note is appropriate for simple extensions of earlier work or interesting test-work. We wish to feel that the papers coming out are worthwhile reading and that the authors deserve the kudos associated with publishing a world top journal.<br />Malcolm PowellMalcolm Powellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-67845546261078895402011-04-06T16:03:11.659+01:002011-04-06T16:03:11.659+01:00I have small experience about this subject but hav...I have small experience about this subject but have engineering and industrial inspection efforts several years. No scape from inspection and evaluation, therefore the review (or peer-review) on papers is a must. At least 2 reviwers as representative of 2 point of views also make enough confidence about the quality. However for expediting the procedure maybe we can use a statistical survay for rough analysis. I mean for well known authors, you assign at least two qualified reviewrs, but by receiving the evaluation from only one well known referee (reviewer), maybe is enough. <br /><br />With regards<br />MH Kouklan<br />JapanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-1659331433603147592011-03-31T15:25:08.485+01:002011-03-31T15:25:08.485+01:00Peer review starts with the author.
Is the qualit...Peer review starts with the author.<br /><br />Is the quality of papers being submitted following the same lazy trend as the lack of readability found in both print and online news articles nowadays? And is our instant communication habit influencing some authors to be less inclined to rethink and refine papers to a higher quality before submitting?<br /><br />Mike Adams<br />Mutis Liber, AustraliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-19755144895224911682011-03-28T17:21:34.612+01:002011-03-28T17:21:34.612+01:00Hi Barry
I concur with most of the comments that t...Hi Barry<br />I concur with most of the comments that the current single-blind review<br />system for Minerals Engineering works well. I see no reason why the<br />system should be changed. <br /><br />Best regards<br />Adrian Hinde, Mintek, South AfricaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-41185615918141862342011-03-28T13:48:45.506+01:002011-03-28T13:48:45.506+01:00Hi Jacques
Sorry I don't have that informatio...Hi Jacques<br /><br />Sorry I don't have that information to hand, but there has been an enormous increase in paper flow over the past decade.<br /><br />Don't be too concerned about the number of reviewer, however. To be honest, finding enthusiastic reviewers is not a great problem (nor should it be). My main concern in the posting was about the slowness of peer-review in this electronic world- but no one seems too worried about this.MEIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14834780351452765156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-60250220435970894902011-03-27T20:40:31.142+01:002011-03-27T20:40:31.142+01:00Hi Barry,
How did the number of papers submitted f...Hi Barry,<br />How did the number of papers submitted for review(to Elsevier in general and Minerals Engineering in particular) increase in the past two decades and to what degree did the number of available reviewers increase over the same period (1991-2011)? I am concerned that, despite all our noble intentions and commitments we might have a diverging situation on our hands. This does not imply that we move away from Peer Review. Above are ample reasons why Peer Review is critical. However, Elsevier (and other publishers) should revisit how the process is managed to better align submissions requiring reviews and available reviewers.<br />I do think that your specialised conferences work well to attract potential reviewers and for reviewers to get a "feel" of the contents of the papers through the presentations. <br />Jacques EksteenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-9092216621590243142011-03-26T18:24:06.009+00:002011-03-26T18:24:06.009+00:00.......continued
In reality, we have a situation ..........continued<br /><br />In reality, we have a situation where:<br /><br />1. The author(s) have only sometimes done their homework, and English is not their first language, or even if it is, their writing style is not practical, efficient and concise. Furthermore, this type of author often has not read widely and deeply enough from the published literature. This is more prevalent in the new authors; however the more experienced ones (who have developed good author reputations) more closely resemble the ideal description abovementioned.<br /><br />In other cases, sometimes the work submitted by the author is a paradigm shift from the conventional, but is sound new work and deserves to be published. It does happen in this type of case that sometimes one of the reviewers has difficulty engaging the new thinking pattern of the author, and puts obstacles in the way of the publication. A long exchange between author(s) and reviewer(s) then develops. This can at times be unpleasant, but as Jannie van Deventer correctly points out, the authors should stick to their view and write rebuttals to explain to the reviewer why their interpretation is correct (this commonly happens when the author(s) have “imported” knowledge from another discipline, in which the reviewer may not necessarily have read).<br /><br />2. The editor-in-chief is always looking for more reviewers, and occasionally has difficulty in matching the subject material of the submitted article with two ideally qualified, experienced and available reviewers.<br /><br />3. The reviewers are usually very busy people, and commonly find that the more basic problems of article structure, good English, and especially the lack of a deep literature review, confound the assessment of the scientific work in the submitted manuscript. They thus spend more time revising the writing than assessing the technical work. This can be seen as an annoyance, but in the spirit that we take on the role of a reviewer, are we not also becoming advisers to the new authors? Should we not be assisting new promising authors who have the potential to grow and develop, rather than just constructively criticising the work?<br /><br />So…. onward with a necessary but imperfect peer review system….problems on both sides (authors and reviewers). I am aware that you and Nag Nagaraj have at times presented short courses on the subject of how to prepare a good paper. Maybe we need to offer that training more frequently – but are the right people attending these courses? Maybe ahead of the bigger conferences, such as at the IMPC – as you did in Beijing?<br /><br />Yours sincerely<br /><br />Norman O. Lotter, Xstrata Process Support<br />Sudbury, OntarioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-54743420418176100692011-03-26T18:17:48.611+00:002011-03-26T18:17:48.611+00:00Why am I an author?
It is a common requirement in...Why am I an author?<br /><br />It is a common requirement in postgraduate studies that papers are published out of the thesis work. I think this may be where some of the practice of publishing starts in a career. Supervising professors (and external examiners) want to see that some of the candidate’s thesis work has been submitted to, and has passed, a peer review process and has been published in a reputable journal. This adds credibility to the thesis work, and to the postgraduate degree awarded. Thereafter, the professional develops a position on a niche topic whilst working in industry or at university (some choose academic careers), and wants to see if their latest addition to the knowledge and best practice of his/her topic stands the test of his/her peers.<br /><br />So it seems that a peer review system is essential – as Dee Bradshaw has pointed out.<br /><br />Why am I a reviewer?<br /><br />Firstly, because you approached me and asked if I would be interested in doing so, and I agreed. That formed a commitment. Secondly, because we all want the journal to continue into the future as a solid, reliable archival reference base in minerals processing.<br /><br />Some Comments on the Current Peer Review Process<br /><br />Ideally, we would want a situation where:<br /><br />1. The author(s) have really done their homework, and have put together a strong scientific case describing their piece of new science or engineering. They have furthermore had their manuscript checked by a colleague whose English is top-notch, and the flaws in the article have been sorted out either by performing more work, or by more advanced interpretation. This is typically the case for experienced, well-published authors.<br /><br />2. The editor-in-chief looks at the abstract, sees the potential in the article, and easily finds two perfectly-qualified and experienced reviewers who have expert knowledge of the niche topic being written about. They furthermore have ample spare time in which to perform the review in a week or so.<br /><br />3. Both reviewers spend between eight and ten hours reviewing the manuscript, find a few related publications that should be cited, but are quite comfortable with the scientific component, and submit their reviewers’ reports with a recommendation for “minor edits, then publication”.<br /><br />Continued in next comment.......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-80146816447836455972011-03-24T19:23:11.673+00:002011-03-24T19:23:11.673+00:00Hi Barry
Sorry to be late with these comments, I ...Hi Barry <br />Sorry to be late with these comments, I have been busy writng a lecture on crytals for lay persons who may or may not understand basic chemistry. Luckily it went well with good feedback from a member of the audience who had A-level Chemistry. No peer review however which is probably the case with most lectures and oral presentations.<br /><br />Published technical papers on the other hand definitely reqire PEER REVIEW. It is essential and I agree with most of the comments posted above and your own views. It can be frustrating especially for poorly written papers in English (or any other publishable langauge)and the only innovation I would likre to suggest is that editors should refer the paper back to a specialist bureau for redrafting papers in decent language, preferably before peer review. It might be hard to judge the scientific merit first to see if this process is justified by the content but it would help reviewers. I know such trancription organisations do exist in places like China but I am not sure if they exist elsewhere. If not, fluent colleagues should be asked to help as it adds to the burden of reviewing if a paper needs to be virtually rewritten to be comprhensible. As one commentator above says "Time is precious".<br /><br />Another point that I have made before is that whilst I fully agree that reviewing should be voluntary and unpaid, it would help to provide limited expenses for reviewers like me who are retired and do not have access to organisational facilities like paper and printer ink. I know it could all be done on-line but I prefer to be able to scribble comments on the manuscript and refer back to them to write reports. <br /><br />I am impressed by the quality of most of the journals for which I act as a reviewer particularly the Elsevier publications "Minerals Engineering" and Hydrometallurgy though in my field I sometimes find it hard to decide which of those is the most appropriate.<br /><br />I also appreciate the problems of the editor having been one myself many years ago though I think the problems are rather different now from when I acted in the early days of "Hydrometallurgy"Nevill Ricenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-56047767642668507152011-03-24T12:13:44.282+00:002011-03-24T12:13:44.282+00:00Peer reviews are a way for everyone to learn even ...Peer reviews are a way for everyone to learn even outside the academic environment. Current experiences would suggest that it's vital for ALL. No one is above feedback or learning from others even if more junior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6908362959739425575.post-82145343904096004402011-03-24T10:13:42.538+00:002011-03-24T10:13:42.538+00:00I have no problem with the current system.
Brian L...I have no problem with the current system.<br />Brian Loveday, Emeritus Professor, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South AfricaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com