tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974689037579445239.post4601592203881039658..comments2023-12-22T19:56:34.485-05:00Comments on The Dake Page: How peer-review works…and doesn’t work (Part 3: Abusing the system)The Dake Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01624426335390949151noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974689037579445239.post-10872196637514703992016-10-08T13:33:41.858-04:002016-10-08T13:33:41.858-04:00Thanks for this.Thanks for this.S. Lawrence Parrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14957952830054232423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974689037579445239.post-17317976663019949162015-03-05T08:57:27.439-05:002015-03-05T08:57:27.439-05:00You make excellent points and I didn't mean to...You make excellent points and I didn't mean to suggest that legitimate papers that have unconventional ideas be restricted. My suggestion that peer-review standards be strengthened is more focused on keeping the process free from abuse such as that described, and ensuring that some sort of peer-review is included in the new open-access journals.<br /><br />This last point is probably the The Dake Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624426335390949151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1974689037579445239.post-66120975311576866312015-02-25T19:19:56.059-05:002015-02-25T19:19:56.059-05:00There isn’t much that can be done about such paper...<i>There isn’t much that can be done about such papers other than to keep strengthening peer-review standards, a difficult proposition given the thousands of journals that now compete for papers to publish. Sometimes the papers are retracted, but as noted above, retractions are rare, though increasing. This latter point can actually work against legitimate scientists. </i><br /><br />Being a &Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com