Articles by Alexander Berezin

While Eliezer Geisler1 most likely appreciates "many weaknesses of the peer review process," his overly optimistic mantra that the "subjective assessment of quality by a group of selected knowledgeable people in a given scientific field remains the only operational control process designed to differentiate between poor and good science" is, unfortunately, not free from circular logic. Not going into a detailed discussion here,2 I will just indicate the main problem. If, as it stays now, peer re

Ronald N. Kostoff1 asserts that the "filtering" role of peer review is the prime reason why it is so much needed. This is precisely why it is not. At least in its present form of anonymous, prepublication peer approval. Ironically, in the Internet age, printed specialized research journals have lost their major purpose of being vehicles of information. Their prime role, at the very best, is to serve as glorified lists of recommended reading. Instead, what we need is a "publish all" strateg

The Scientist, July 11, 1994, page 13), "revealing a reviewer's identity is a good way to dilute or eliminate valuable and often valid criticism." Yet if you, as a reviewer, are confident in your opinion, then why should you hide your name? Could it be that anonymous peer review (APR) is grounded in fear of looking foolish in case you (the reviewer) turn to be wrong? But to face the risk of being wrong is an inherent part of the vo

The Scientist, July 11, 1994, page 13), "revealing a reviewer's identity is a good way to dilute or eliminate valuable and often valid criticism." Yet if you, as a reviewer, are confident in your opinion, then why should you hide your name? Could it be that anonymous peer review (APR) is grounded in fear of looking foolish in case you (the reviewer) turn to be wrong? But to face the risk of being wrong is an inherent part of the vo