Info: CFP – Peer Reviewing and Research Evaluation

As you know, only the 8% of the Scientific Research Society’s members agreed
that ‚peer review works well as it is'(Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).
Consequently, we invite you to participate in identifying means to improve
Peer Review effectiveness.
Call for Participations through any of the following three ways to
contribute in the improvement of Peer Review processes:
•   Research Blogging, and/or
•   Submitting an abstract and CV to a Conference Special Track (submission
deadline: May 18, 2012), and/or
•   Submitting an article to the Journal on systemic, Cybernetics and
Informatics (JSCI)
Details at (Where authors and articles
referenced in this are included among a larger list of references)
An exponentially increasing number of studies and experience-based editors‘
opinions are clear and explicit about peer review weaknesses and failures.
The following affirmations are a very small sample (Many more can be found
at the references included in the above mentioned URL)
„A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.“
(Horrobin,2001) Horrobin concludes that peer review „is a non-validated
charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.“

„If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market“
affirmed Drummond Rennie (Smith, 2010, p.1), deputy editor of the Journal Of
the American Medical Association and who intellectually provided support for
the international congresses of peer review that have been held, since 1989,
every four years. If peer review was a drug, he added, it „would not get
onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a
lot of evidence of its flaws.“ (Ibid)

Few days ago, Carl Zimmer (2012) reported in the New York Time that,
according to a study made by PubMed data base, the number of articles
retracted from scientific journals increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009.
6000% of increment in 10 years! This „Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts
Calls for Reform.“ (Ibid)

But, „Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice“
(Goodstein, 2000), it is completely necessary as quality assurance for
Scientific/Engineering publications, and „Peer Review is central to the
organization of modern science… why not apply scientific [and engineering]
methods to the peer review process“ (Horrobin, 2001).

This is the purpose of this call for participation via 1) blogging, 2)
submitting an article to the Special Track on Peer Reviewing: PR 2012,
and/or 3) submitting an article to the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics,
and Informatics. More details for each of these three ways of participating
can be found at


PR 2012 Organizing Committee

Kommentare sind gesperrt.