From: Bill Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 12:07:33 -0400

This is really intriguing.....

One hopes that advances like these overcome other barriers that slow
down scientific progress.

Some barriers seem impossible to overcome.   The main one is that
anyone with a truly important insight, invention, development,
contribution, or theory--is simply going to keep it "close to the
vest."

Does selective (a more precise term than "intelligent") crowd peer
review help create surges in scientific progress?

This seems possible, but as yet unclear...

 Bill


On 6/12/17 6:07 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:17:58 -0400
>
> "The chemistry journal Synlett, published by Thieme, has successfully
> trialled a new system of peer review that allows a crowd of 100
> approved researchers to comment on manuscripts online.
>
> "The idea was born out of frustration with traditional peer review,
> says the journal’s editor in chief, Benjamin List of the Max Planck
> Institute for Coal Research in Germany. ‘What we do [at the moment] is
> sloppy – we let two people give their opinions and on the basis of
> this a paper gets accepted or not,’ he tells Chemistry World. ‘It’s
> slow and the quality can vary.’"
>
> [SNIP]
>
> https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/chemistry-journal-introduces-intelligent-crowd-peer-review-/3007534.article?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1RJNE9URmlNR1ZtWlRVMyIsInQiOiJwN2IxTDdtWXBsT2t1cXU0TW4zTlpnUFwvRWRcL2RIMFdzWXFZSEhRbk5Yc2pmTkw0MXlYcHRnTWpUeHJ6TkNwbFwvcm9pbU54YjY3VjZsWklYdVpKaXB1S2pyWjVwV1RYUXdTRzVPb1VlTndvRWdjYXZVVGVjNTZtZjdmaWNoRDRtbCJ9