| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Springer Protocols article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Peer review edit
At issue is the following sentence:"While Springer Protocols have claimed that they are 'Peer-Reviewed' on their marketing, they do NOT have a peer-review process in place that would be recognized as such by the scientific community they serve."
This is an opinion and is not backed by any reference. According to Wikipedia standards, "content must be verifiable." This sentence was inserted though no mention of "peer-review" had ever been included on this page; this is slander, which has no home on Wikipedia.
Since the debate has started, it may be of interest to notethat on the Wiki page for Nature Protocols, it says that its protocols are peer-reviewed; if you look at that site's website and the one for Springer Protocols, you will notice very similar review processes. Given all this, it would be hard to argue that the scientific community would take the stand you claim. And since neither you nor I can claim to know what the entire scientific community would decide, such a comment should not be included on any Wiki page. Pscott22 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
--- Response to Above Posting ---
The original page to which I made edits DID indeed mention that Springer Protocols are "Peer-Reviewed." Also, Springer Protocols HAVE claimed in all their marketing that they are Peer-Reviewed, and if there needs to be a reference page devoted soley to debunking the claims of Springer marketing, perhaps there needs to be one set up. If Springer Protocols are to claim Peer-Review, specifically with reference to the peer-review process to their competitors at Nature, I would implore them to offer a detailed explanation of what their peer reveiw process entails, and if it is indeed along the lines of a true scientific peer-review, it could only help their efforts in reaching the community they serve. Right now, to call my appropriate and true statement sladerous, and to falsely claim that they never reference peer-review on this page is simply and completely false. Professor1976 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting link: For anyone interested, Nature led an interesting debate on the subject of peer review, which can be read here. Pscott22 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)