I think it is a great point. Here's an example of where certified is used.
The warning on medRxiv: "Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work
that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on
to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be
reported in news media as established information." (
https://www.medrxiv.org/)

I want to point out that the quoted statement is about what the reader
is to understand a "peer reviewed" label means on a published article. Not
what reviewers themselves do.
___

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
[log in to unmask]





On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:13 AM Pavithran Narayanan <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> At the outset, thanks to Rick for creating this forum to discuss a myriad
> of things on scholarly publishing.
>
> I am a little intrigued by just one word in the following sentence in
> Lisa's post (in the Scholarly Kitchen post, actually): "This article has
> been certified by peer review, which means scholars in the field advised at
> the time of review it was worth this journal...". Admitting to my rather
> limited knowledge in publishing and peer review, I think the latter is not
> any kind of "certification". This might sound very semantic and a bit
> trivial but it is precisely such a choice of words that may result in
> overstating the value of peer review in today's publishing context. It
> would probably be correct to say traditional peer review "recommends"
> rather than certifies.
>
> Happy discussing! :) :)
>
> Best,
> Pavi
>
>

########################################################################

Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L

To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]

########################################################################