|
|
|
|
|
by krutulis
4894 days ago
|
|
The idea that appraisal of academic work must be made in secret does not ring true. Perhaps universities have degenerated into political posturing over pursuit of knowledge, but even this seems like an argument for opening the process in order to reform it. The young researcher should not have to be the one to tell the senior researcher the work is crap. This is why the process is called "peer" review. Of course, the senior researcher should not be submitting crap, and should be told bluntly if she or he does. But perhaps I'm missing the point and "peer review" is now doublespeak for the process of editing a paper. In this case, the academic publishing racket appears even more absurd. |
|