Nobelist backs internal review for papers, ‘trust’ scores for scientists

Interesting idea. However, how much longer would that take to publish a paper then? Many academics nowadays have already heavy workloads. Now they would have to also review each others papers before submission. Another point... What if there are "inside politics" within a department? I do agree we need to find a way to oust the crooks. This debate is most welcome indeed.

This suggestion seemingly good on the surface might in the end just replace one set of problems with another ! ... and not every place will be an ‘NBS’ or that NBS. Basil Jide fadipe.

No idea why this is news. Nearly every scholar knows to test fly papers before submitting them. We teach this to graduate students. Journals run workshops that tell scholars to get their papers mock reviewed. Many institutions hold brown back seminars internally to do this. It is just a normal part of scientific and institutional interaction.

Academic staff are heavily loaded with teaching and admin duties, does not seem like a thoroughly discussed/debated idea. Whole system of publishing system is failing , we need new/beeter system of getting sciences to the wider audiences. there must be an open debate without involving publication houses. Publication houses have heavily abused the whole system, some manuscripts can take upto year or more from submission date.

“They will make my paper better. I don’t have to pay anything, I don’t have to put their names on my paper,” he said. This system is “very good”, but is in use “only in very few institutes around the world”, he added. Who are these paragons of virtue who work, seemingly, for nothing? In my experience no-one takes internal review seriously, you just get back 'this looks fine' platitudes.

Some research labs publish internal technical memorandum of new results that invite internal comment BEFORE publication. This is just common sense; n o one wants to be associated with a research organization that publishes fake results. Even so, congenital fakers may succeed for a time, causing great damage to once trustworthy institutions as in the case of Jan Hendrick Schon at Bell Labs

'Speaking to THE, he suggested creating a numerical “trust credit” score for scientists, and giving academics higher ratings if they repeatedly publish “worthy” papers. Relying on a scientist’s “reputation”, as most people do now, is “illusive because there is no number of the reputation”, he said.' This bothers me, even though the idea is, at first sight, a decent one. It's just another metric. And metrics of this type are blunt instruments. They need a process to be created. They don't have any real nuance, and worse: they can be gamed. In some cases, I'd more effort would be spent gaming that score to improve it than perhaps doing the things that were supposed to improve the score in principle. If research assessment exercises have taught us nothing else, it that this behaviour is almost inevitable.