As a journal editor, I am often surprised by some of the suggestions authors make for potential reviewers. In some cases the suggestions are not very good, and on occasion authors do not suggest reviewers at all. Some authors will even state explicitly that they cannot think of any reviewers, which is really surprising.
h-index
Science's Editor in Chief and "Friends" Discuss Peer Review and Journal
Impact. (July 4, 2008)
Bruce
Alberts1, Brooks Hanson2
and Katrina L. Kelner3 collaborated to write this
week's Science editorial on peer review. And if for no other reason
than the weekly has one of the highest impact ratings, when Science
speaks science administrators listen.
The peer review system has been the established way to select publicated research for decades. However, this way of publishing may come to an end.
New developments in this field embrace the idea that research should not be restricted by the iron grip of the journals. The value of the authors work is debated in cyberspace, leading to a number of consequences. Disadvantages include the possibility of a deluge of junk science due to the unfiltered publishing and online abuse concerning unfairly ridiculing rival's work. On the other side scientific discovery could be accelerated and online critiques may help detect mistakes or fraud more quickly.
Already the first initiatives are present, Philica, PLoS (Public Library of Science). Online journals are not boomingly popular, as they have attracted little attention so far. However, possibilities regarding reaching a broad audience in a fast way seem promising...
