Peer review: Gold standard or gold in them thar hills?
I've been busy writing, and now with radio, so I haven't been blogging for a couple of days, but here is a piece I just put up elsewhere, in five parts, on peer review.
Part One: If peer review always worked before, why doesn't it work now?
Part Two: How bad can it get? Pretty bad.
Part Three: How the system is slowly becoming more open and dynamic, whether anyone wants it to or not
Part Four:How will we know if a more open system works better?
Back to blogging tomorrow, I hope.
Labels: peer review