In my inbox:
From: ISPR/KGCM 2009 [mailto:...@.ICTconfer.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:38 PM
Subject: Invitation to a Symposium on Peer Reviewing
Only 8% members of the Scientific Research Society agreed that "peer review works well as it is." (Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192).
"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research." (Horrobin, 2001).
Horrobin concludes that peer review "is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance." (Horrobin, 2001). This has been statistically proven and reported by an increasing number of journal editors.
Since a growing number of studies conclude that peer review is flawed and ineffective as it is being implemented, why not apply scientific and engineering research and methods to the peer review process?
This is the purpose of the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing:... which will be held on July 10-13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, USA.
So peer review is ineffective and flawed and sucks. And the punch line?
All Submitted papers will be reviewed using a double-blind (at least three reviewers), non-blind, and participative peer review.
Time to submit a randomly generated paper!.