I have used this blog to complain about peer reviewers (and to be fair, I also complain about authors and editors) but right now I feel like it is a good time to acknowledge the critical value of the peer review system. There are many points of potential challenge associated with translating, or maybe it is better described as transforming, research activities into an accurate and comprehensible text-based record. I don't know about everyone else but anything I write is likely to be incorrect, awkward, or maybe more generously described as less than ideal as a first draft. If you could see me typing now, you would see it consists largely of stopping, restarting, deleting and inserting words, punctuation, and spaces, pausing to consider and re-read, followed by more writing and more undoing (and redoing) previously deleted content. I catch some things but almost always rely on one or two pre-readers before I submit anything for publication. Still, within peer reviewer comments there are almost always questions or recommendations about structure or grammar, which should be the easy stuff to get right before you submit and still I don't always. But I believe the primary value in peer review is its role to consider and comment on quality of research conduct and associated credibility of results. So it follows that I personally am getting pretty tired of seeing research from pre-prints featured in popular media reports, columns and other types of articles.
0 Comments
|
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|