Flawed peer review submission

From AussieInnovation Wiki

Flawed Peer Review
Created	March 3, 2008
Submitted	March 3, 2008
Review Reference	11-Ian_Clark
Location	Official Review submissions page
Discussion
Authors	Prof Ian Clark
Topics	Peer review, Challenging dominant thought, Barrier to innovation

Abstract

“So to stay active, researchers have no choice but to concentrate their efforts into attempting to jump through these hoops. They are quite aware that referees of highest impact journals, by definition the leaders in the field, much prefer predictable advances within current concepts – which they typically work on themselves – rather than originality that is seen to question their leadership. Instead, and unsurprisingly, they prefer manuscripts that conform to the conventional paradigm, thus reinforcing their pre-eminence. So truly original ideas do not get in the highest impact journals, but have to work their way down the journal ladder. Fewer papers, lower impact journals, lower productivity, failure.”

Link: http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Documents/11-Ian_Clark.pdf

Notes

None at this stage.

Discussion

No forum as of yet.