Literature Reviews

The article by Paul McCarthy in the May 30, 1994, issue of The Scientist [page 1] on peer review struck a responsive note. I, too, have come to distrust journal reviewers and National Institutes of Health pink sheets despite good fortune with publications and grants over many years. Responsibility and devotion are far less than they were one and two generations ago, perhaps a mirror of our end-of- century society. But I have a solu

Thomas Maren
Aug 21, 1994

The article by Paul McCarthy in the May 30, 1994, issue of The Scientist [page 1] on peer review struck a responsive note. I, too, have come to distrust journal reviewers and National Institutes of Health pink sheets despite good fortune with publications and grants over many years. Responsibility and devotion are far less than they were one and two generations ago, perhaps a mirror of our end-of- century society.

But I have a solution, at least for journal reviews. I do favor signed reviews, but this will probably never fly. But why shouldn't reviewers be required to document their comments, citing appropriate literature? Can't these godlike, nameless shadows be brought into scientific focus?

THOMAS H. MAREN
University of Florida
College of Medicine
P.O. Box 100267
Gainesville, Fla. 32620-0267

(The Scientist, Vol:8, #16, pg.13, August 22, 1994) (Copyright, The Scientist, Inc.)


Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?