Field of Science


I'm doing my periodic re-certification on research ethics. One of the questions on one of the quizzes is as follows:
TRUE/FALSE: A good alternative to the current peer review process would be web logs (BLOGS) where postings where [sic] papers would be posted and reviewed by those who have an interest in the work.
Apparently, the correct answer is "false". Presumably because we have much better technology for this kind of thing, rather than using a simple blog? 

1 comment:

Bill Meacham said...

No, it's because the peer review process qualifies the peers before giving them something to review, whereas anyone can comment on a blog.