Sounds good to me, but how would you go about forcing them to do so besides dropping subscriptions, and that may not be feasible for everyone.  Personally, we dropped JAMA awhile ago in favor of New England Journal of Medicine.  It’s worked for us, but we also don’t have any big medicine programs.

 

 

Abbigail Stauber

Library Technician

724.847.6693 | acgreg@geneva.edu

http://www.geneva.edu/email/_assets/seal-address-2.jpg

 

 

 

From: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG] On Behalf Of Melissa Belvadi
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 8:19 AM
To: SERIALST@LISTSERV.NASIG.ORG
Subject: [SERIALST] peer-reviewed journals and statistical review - suggestion

 

Hi, I was talking with my colleagues this morning about the news about JAMA retractions.

 

One article - we can blame the peer reviewers.

Thirteen articles - it's time to blame the editors, and talk about what they should be doing differently.

One thing they can do differently is use professional statisticians, not volunteer reviewers.

 

We agreed that, for all the money we spend on these journals, it's time we expect the publishers to have their own (paid) in-house statisticians review the submissions as a separate review process from the external peer reviewers. From what we heard from the graduate student interviewed here on CBC, anyone with a B.S. in Stats would have caught a lot of Wansink's malfeasance, p-hacking etc.

 

What do you all think of this idea?

 

Melissa Belvadi

Collections Librarian

University of Prince Edward Island

mbelvadi@upei.ca 902-566-0581

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1


To unsubscribe from the SERIALST list, click the following link:
http://listserv.nasig.org/scripts/wa-NASIG.exe?SUBED1=SERIALST&A=1