1. clock
  2. Google Peer Review!?

Google Peer Review!?

By clock on February 10, 2009.

This appears to be from Google: GPeerReview:

We intend for the peer-review web to do for scientific publishing what the world wide web has done for media publishing. As it becomes increasingly practical to evaluate researchers based on the reviews of their peers, the need for centralized big-name journals begins to diminish. The power is returned to those most qualified to give meaningful reviews: the peers. As long as big journals provide a useful service, this tool will only enhance their effectiveness. But the more they take months to review our publications, and the more they give unqualified reviews, and the more they force us to clear irrelevant hurdles prior to publication, and the more they lock up our works behind fees and copyright transfers, the more this tool will provide an alternative to their services.

What do you all think?

Tags
open science

More like this

Online publishing, new way of peer-reviewing, and blogs
Rethinking Peer Review: In reality, peer review is a fairly recent innovation, not widespread until the middle of the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century, many science journals were commandingly led by what Ohio State University science historian John C. Burnham dubbed "crusading and…
Nature Precedings
It is infuriating how stodgy biomedical sciences are in terms of information sharing. It's not clear how much of this is bred of inherent conservatism, the pressures of a very competitive field or just plain technobackwardness. But while mathematics and physics have had preprint servers for years,…
Introducing PLoS Currents: Influenza
Yesterday PLoS and Google unveiled PLoS Currents: Influenza, a Google Knol hosted collection of rapid communications about the swine flu. In his blog post A new website for the rapid sharing of influenza research (also posted on the official Google blog), Dr.Harold Varmus explains: The key goal of…
Interview with Mark Patterson, Executive Director of eLife
Welcome to the most recent installment in my very occasional series of interviews with people in the publishing/science blogging/computing communities. This latest installment is with Mark Patterson, Executive Director of new OA publisher eLife. I attended an ARL Directors briefing conference call…

It's a project hosted at Google Code, but there is no indication that it is a Google initiative, nor that the developer is employed by Google.

I'd be afraid of reviews coming back marked "LOL WUT"

Getting people to review papers thoughtfully is a major hurdle for any scientific venue. I don't see how this helps.

It sounds like a great idea in a pre-print service (Nature Precedings already has this facility), but I can't see it replacing normal peer review - there's nothing that ensures that a manuscript is reviewed seriously and improved accordingly.

I'm waiting for Maxine to comment on FriendFeed. :-)

The power is returned to those most qualified to give meaningful reviews: the peers.

Along the same lines as James F, I'd like to know exactly what qualified means in this context. If Google plans on doing something along the lines of the Open Access Journals, then I can see this as having potential.

By B Bouwhuis (not verified) on 10 Feb 2009 #permalink

This is typical populist talk from Google. They do not mention a definition of "qualified". Lay people cannot peer review science articles.