Évaluation ouverte par les pairs : polysémie et problématiques. 2/2 | OpenEdition Lab
page_amanda's bookmarks 2015-12-17
Summary:
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Times; panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
[Abstract translated from original French using Google Translate]
“Second part of the paper reporting the previously conducted exploratory research the establishment of an open evaluation experience peer and open comments on the research of the book VertigO review. The first part is available at: http://lab.hypotheses.org/1453 Problems of open peer review The reasons some to oppose the open peer evaluation are recurrent, they are found all items mentioned in addressing the issue. Here trying to synthesize. Young discussants / evaluators take the risk of damaging their professional prospects frontally criticizing renowned scientists. Conversely, they may be reluctant to evaluate too favorably by a paper published afraid to let any complacency. Tensions may arise in open discussion between researchers, affecting industrial relations. The discussants / assessors could be less critical, not to offend the sensibilities, which would lower the overall level of scientifique1 research. It is significant to note that these remarks were made as follows in an article from 2000, and they remain the same fifteen years later in the literature devoted to open peer review. Stevan Harnad sums up the issue in an article already cited….”