Hi Rick,

Thanks for your views and I definitely accept that it's not an impossible task and it is a needful thing. By saying it's futile, I also did not mean that it is impossible. It is just that whatever definition I have come across does not seem enough and complete. I think this is essentially due to the way peer review is constructed, practiced, evaluated, and propagated today. Of course, we can differentiate between good and bad reviews but it would always be subjective and there would always be that broad grey area that will be difficult to navigate. 

So, I think the energy that is spent on attempting to find a good-fit definition also needs to be channeled into redefining the contours of peer review, making clear what we need from it and how best to use it for the welfare of our community. Thankfully, a lot of such initiatives are being taken up today and we can hope that we will be able to define peer review without much trouble in the near future!

Best wishes,
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]

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