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?
- Log in to post comments
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.
So authors get to pick which reviews they want to include with their paper? Nice.
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. :-)
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.
This is typical populist talk from Google. They do not mention a definition of "qualified". Lay people cannot peer review science articles.
All my papers: 5 stars
All your papers: 0 stars
Done!