>What about fixing before the fact? It will not happen, but put the proposed
paper on line and let the peer review be open to all.

Yes, this would be preferable. 

One of the most valuable experiences I had in college was in my senior year...I took a jewelry making class in the art department.  I had the opposite perspective of most of the students in the class....they were artists struggling to learn to use tools and to work with metal....I was very tool savvy and had worked in manufacturing/machine shops with precious metals over a couple of summers....but I hadn't been in an art class since junior high (I can't draw a straight line with a ruler...thank goodness for computers!).

The most important lesson I learned was about the critique (this was new to me)...everyone went around the room and talked about their own piece.  I learned quickly that if you could point out the flaws in your own piece, all that was left for people to say were complimentary things :).  ...this of course assumes that you've covered all the flaws yourself (and the instructor was a stickler for the finish work on the _back_ of the piece).

It is hard to fail at anything if you give it your best shot _and_ you are proactive about recognizing flaws and weaknesses (openly...not hiding them).  It's hard for others not to be helpful if you can tell them what you are doing well and what isn't working.

This is one of the things missing in so much of our culture....admitting flaws in one's self and/or work is seen as admitting weakness.  This is a mistake.  Self critique is the most empowering thing any of us can do to improve ourselves and our work...science is no exception.

If I were a journal like Plos One (or something similar), I'd offer cash prizes for finding flaws in studies that they agree to publish...after all, what reviewer is going to be more familiar with the work and the weaknesses than the researcher?  Why shouldn't the author(s) be concerned enough about the quality of their own published work to send it out to (and discuss it with) people that _can_ poke holes in it preemptively?

I will say that when were were writing our book, it was for a large publisher, not a smaller beekeeping publisher...and there was no one checking our facts....so we made sure to get the bulk of the manuscript to someone that would critique it.

There were 3 specific factual objections...one of the objections was something that I had written (Allen will take pleasure in the fact that it was an analogy) that was straight up not accurate and we changed it...the other two we double checked our sources and decided we felt justified in making the claims we did.  

Obviously, whatever the peer review process is supposed to be, it isn't...if it were (and if the 'system' cared about the integrity of the system itself), there would be pressure to retract or amend papers when there are obvious fundamental problems pointed out.

...and not to put too fine a point on it, but what good does it do to publish research if a lay beekeeping enthusiast can, with a few sentences, show that fundamental claims in the research do not make sense?

deknow

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html