I think it makes a lot of sense. However, I think they would use that as another reason to continue the skyrocketing subscription rates associated with their
content. That aside, that professional statisticians are not involved in some manner of review just seems negligent, in my opinion. If the interviewed graduate student’s assertions are correct, then even a “qualified” peer reviewer should have been able to
catch the problems …if the reviewers were taking a close look at the data.
Jennifer Sauer, MLIS
Scholar Services & E-Resources Librarian
Forsyth Library
Fort Hays State University
(785)628-5262
From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum <SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG>
On Behalf Of Melissa Belvadi
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 7:19 AM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: [SERIALST] peer-reviewed journals and statistical review - suggestion
Hi, I was talking with my colleagues this morning about the news about JAMA retractions.
One article - we can blame the peer reviewers.
Thirteen articles - it's time to blame the editors, and talk about what they should be doing differently.
One thing they can do differently is use professional statisticians, not volunteer reviewers.
We agreed that, for all the money we spend on these journals, it's time we expect the publishers to have their own (paid) in-house statisticians review the submissions
as a separate review process from the external peer reviewers. From what we heard from the graduate student interviewed here on CBC, anyone with a B.S. in Stats would have caught a lot of Wansink's malfeasance, p-hacking etc.
What do you all think of this idea?
Melissa Belvadi
Collections Librarian
University of Prince Edward Island
mbelvadi@upei.ca 902-566-0581
To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1