From: "Maher, Stephen" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 00:29:16 +0000
True, Ari but I didn't suggest peer-review be regulated by one's home
institution. The State College Journal of Biochemistry could still
have random peer-reviewers from other institutions.
What I was suggesting is 1) institutions could (somehow) acknowledge
its faculty or faculty candidates for their contributions to peer
review and 2) consider these acknowledgements more favorably in
decisions of promotion, tenure, and hiring.
Stephen Maher (via mobile)
NYU Health Sciences Library
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 18:04, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 18:04:03 -0800
> Peer-review is alpha and omega of the publishing process. Its fairness
> largely comes from a random choice of the referees.
> If the peer-review is relegated to your own own university, this will
> grossly undermine the fairness component, like - sorry for a somewhat
> frivolous analogy - an inbreeding undermines the natural selection.
> Ari Belenkiy
> Vancouver BC
>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:29 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> From: "Maher, Stephen" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:49:45 +0000
>> SciHub is a problem but the short-sighted solution is taking a
>> whack-a-mole approach to the copyright infringers. A holistic solution
>> would look at intrinsic and monetary value of scholarly publishing and
>> reassess the processes.
>> What if universities (re)prioritized participation in peer-review and
>> editorial ethics in its determination for faculty appointments and
>> tenure? What if university presses published their own STEM journals
>> akin to Law Schools and their law reviews?
>> Loving this thread BTW.
>> Stephen Maher, MSIS
>> NYU Health Sciences Library