Looking For Scientific Literature Paper Discussion Forum

There may be websites out there, but you typically need to go directly through an editor to do what you're speaking. I'm a member of one such organization and do reviews all the time on various structural and materials papers.

The reason it's done this way is so the reviewers with known backgrounds are selected for certain papers. I would assume opening it up to the general internet would attract a lot of bogus reviews from all sorts of people who would only detract from the reviewing process.

Having published in peer review journals I see no reason to protect my work for the critisms of anyone who can access it. A forum could be moderated, like these are... people with a lot of stars usually are saying the right stuff.

What's wrong with just posting your review here at Eng-Tips on the relevant subject forum?

For paper's published in a society journal there is always the letter to the editor - although there is no guarantee that it will be published. If you really feel strongly, submit a paper with your viewpoint.

If you are a member of a professional society and are active in its technical committees you will eventually be asked to perform peer reviews. Typically such reviews don't get seen by anyone but the author of the paper being reviewed.

Ok... I know how peer review works. Please, stop explaining it.

My point is that published peer revied journal articles should be open to the same public review as a book. I'm looking for a website that is built exclusively to do that.

So, what is wrong with MJ's suggestion "post your review here at Eng-Tips on the relevant subject forum"? That sounds like a good solution to me.





Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

Peer-reviewed journals are, for the most part, subscription items, so they are already not subject to general public review, and, most engineers subscribe to few, if any, relevant journals.

Frankly, I don't see the overal utility or benefit. Most of us don't have the time to access, or even actual access to, peer-reviewed articles. Nor do we have time to do full-blown analyses of someone's article. The net result is that what we'd see is YOUR opinion of an article that we might not even be able to read, so even if your critique is relevant, accurate, and timely, it would have little benefit for your supposed readership.

I literally don't know you from Jack ;-), so even if I were in your field, I'd have no basis to judge your credentials and whether your critiques are worth reading. The end result will be a preception of someone who generates rants about certain articles, and we'd have no idea whether there's a personal agenda, or what.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

jack256,

what about wikipedia? it seems an ideal structure for what you propose

all you would need to do is find a way of reaching 'interested parties' to let them know about your additions!

regards, HM

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

Start your own blog.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 3.1
AutoCAD 08; CATIA V5
ctopher's home (updated Aug 5, 2008)
ctopher's blog
SolidWorks Legion