Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Peer review of articles before publication  (Read 22577 times)
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #45 on: September 11, 2011, 11:08:24 AM »

while  yes, I do think it would be a great idea for a review process, what if there is some bias? Many of you (me included) hated that "spirit of ham radio" article. you guys hated it, but what about someone else?

KC2VDM

The point many people miss is that peer review does mean an article is thrown out. It simply means poor practices or technical errors are pointed out to the author before publication, not after it is printed where all it can do is embarrass the author and put him in a position where he has to defend or gloss over his mistakes.
 
Also, that article was an opinion article. It was not technical, and contained very few "educational" statements.

Even so, that article would have been much better with peer review. Off-line to the author, a suggestion that calling people names isn't generally productive could have been made. Also in the very limited technical content, it could have been mentioned that the band was about 1/3 the width he stated. Some spelling or typos could also have been pointed out.

This would have been better for the author, eHam, and the readers.

It is always a multiple win when peer review is in place. Peer review actually increases the number of articles, the tone of any forum, and the state of our hobby. It is not used to dismiss articles, unless the author blows his top over constructive private comments. If any author blows up with private comments, he should not be published anyway. He has an obvious emotional shortfall.

There just isn't any way it isn't a win for everyone to have a review process.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 06:27:14 PM by W8JI » Logged
N0YXB
Member

Posts: 328




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2011, 07:41:09 AM »

I agree completely.  Everyone would benefit (except the trolls) and the quality of articles would improve. 
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: September 13, 2011, 05:54:28 AM »

"not used to dismiss articles, unless the author blows his top over constructive private comments. If any author blows up with private comments, he should not be published anyway. He has an obvious emotional shortfall"

Thank you for letting your intentions be known. We don't need any ham radio article police on this site. This is not the Soviet Union and you don't need to be in charge of something to give you a feeling of control in your life. You can keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but it will still be a bad idea, especially with the people mentioned involved, including yourself. Too critical and opinionated of a group!

Before you start reviewing the work of others, you need to take a look at your own writing, including what you just posted. You can't use "Is is" next to each other in the same sentence. I had to leave that off your quote, so that it would make sense.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 07:41:46 AM by KI4SDY » Logged
KC2KCF
Member

Posts: 22




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2011, 06:31:55 AM »

while  yes, I do think it would be a great idea for a review process, what if there is some bias?

Of course there is bias. For example, eham is heavily biased towards a US-centric view of the world, and articles are accepted and published at will by a small number of site editors who - like everyone else - have preconceived notions.

Consulting several domain experts on the merits of an article yields a more pluralistic view, and should be less prone to (but of course not free from) bias.
Logged
K5TR
Administrator

Posts: 387


WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 13, 2011, 07:19:44 AM »

I have been following this thread since it started and I decided to stay out of posting any comments because I did not want to inject any sort of 'official' view point - I wanted to see where it would go.  It looks like it has come to the point of the same things just being repeated.

Some comments - maybe a bit dis-jointed as I am just typing them off the cuff here...

While I am not ready to fire up an article review board I will say that the idea is interesting and might have some merit - or some variation of it. As a result of this tread I do see some small changes we can make to the way articles are presented.  One of those is article categories - we have them - but they are not obvious. One of the articles posted was in the 'opinion' category but unless you are an admin or go to the articles page and filter on that category you would not see that label.  You can see these by going here:

http://www.eham.net/articles/

And using the drop down box in the upper right corner of the page.

For the most part there is currently only one person in charge of the articles and news sections of the eham.net site - this person has been doing this job for a long time and he by no means lets everything that is submitted out onto the live site - there are many many submissions that are not approved.

I will be the first to admit that it is not all great stuff.

I think it is important to understand that eHam.net is not and likely will never be a 'peer reviewed journal'. 

We will likely continue to publish articles on antennas that someone has planned and built even if they are less efficient than a 50 ohm resistor.

If anyone feels they can write and submit higher quality articles that please do so - we can always use better content - I like to read it. If you feel you have something but do not know how to make it look good or do not know how to create HTML or whatever is holding you back I am more than happy to solve those issues for you - send me the text and pictures and I will be glad to help make it look good.

As I said in the opening of my comment - it appears that this topic has pretty much run it's course.

I do, we do listen to your input and we do talk and think about ways to improve the site.  Lately much of our time and effort is being spent on several things.

- A complete rewrite of the entire code base that makes eHam.net work.

- Fixing critical bugs and maintaining the existing site to keep it running smoothly.

Logged

George
K5TR
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 6055




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2011, 11:32:02 AM »

I just love how a certain poster here says that this site doesn't need 'site police'--then proceeds to act and talk like he IS the site police!   Roll Eyes
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2011, 08:11:31 AM »

The point was, lack of insight. You should get some!  Grin
Logged
M0HCN
Member

Posts: 473




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2011, 11:21:39 AM »

Personally I have a few things that I would think about publishing, but ONLY if there was a good way to get some peer review first!

I am not a fan of mandatory peer review in this context, but being able to submit a possible article for review would be (in my view) a good thing for those who wish to take advantage of the facility (And, at east for technical articles, I would wish to take advantage).

I am not bothered at all by technical (or even stylistic or grammar criticism), but would rather know where I screwed up before public distribution followed by needing to issue a retraction (Which is a little embarrassing).

Peer review is not always appropriate, opinion pieces in particular seldom benefit from it, but having a review committee and having it be an option for those who want to take advantage of it would be useful.

Even having a short list of specialists in particular areas who would be willing to informally look at the odd pre publication draft would be useful and would reduce somewhat the amount of folk law unintentionally repeated as truth.   

Regards, Dan.
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2011, 11:36:19 AM »

Take the initial draft to your local ham club. They would be glad to review it for you and would probably give some helpful and positive support.  Grin
« Last Edit: September 18, 2011, 03:16:42 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 1135




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2011, 08:54:56 PM »

I'd like to see the ham publishing industry adapt peer review standards.
What goes on here is nothing compared to what appears in print.

Back on topic:

I'd think a peer review that affords the author feedback before publication,
and the freedom to decide whether to act on the advice or not shouldn't be
offensive to anyone.

Pete
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2011, 06:22:46 AM »

You have to consider the source of the suggestion and the people who were recommended to be involved. That is the problem.  Wink
Logged
W8JI
Member

Posts: 9296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2011, 07:48:22 AM »

You have to consider the source of the suggestion and the people who were recommended to be involved. That is the problem.  Wink

I see now.

This is a personal issue with KI4SDY. He does not like or trust certain people.  Rather than a review team of equal volunteers, KI4SDY wants to hand pick or control who is allowed to be involved. If he cannot pick who is involved, or does not like them, then the peer review idea is bad.

:-)



  

 
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2011, 09:02:42 AM »

Nope, wrong again! There is no problem that needs to be addressed. It is only in the minds of a few that often demonstrate bias. Also, I don't think those who lack reading comprehension skills should reviewing the work of others. 
"I think that it is important to understand that eHam.net is not and likely will never be a 'peer reviewed journal'."

If you did understand the above statement, then you are intentionally ignoring what was communicated to you by the administrators of the site. Another disqualifier! Grin
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 05:23:27 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 1135




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: September 21, 2011, 09:13:34 AM »

Nope, wrong again! There is no problem that needs to be addressed.

Guy, I don't understand why you would say that. There are hundreds examples of erroneous information being passed as
Gospel on eHam, the Zed, and on numerous websites. Most serve to perpetuate myths that are mostly based on popular
belief rather than verifiable technical research.  If I read something on the web that is purported to be fact, and then
spend my hard money based on that information, only to find out the information was ill ill-advised, then I'd say there
was a problem.

Positive peer review is good for the author, the websites in question, and the hams who are seeking knowledge to
address a problem or question they might have. I don't see where censorship was being advocated, but rather
private correspondence with the author before publication for the sake of raising possible concerns with the
accuracy of the presentation.

Pete
« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 09:16:23 AM by K1ZJH » Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2011, 10:59:56 AM »

I don’t understand the comment about W8JI (Tom) being biased.  Ok I will freely admit maybe Tom don’t know everything about every conceivable topic. But he sure knows one heck of a lot more than me and maybe many others. Tom honestly would have tons of things he could be biased about and he is deservingly right to be this way. However many years of reading his post has never ever left me feeling he was biased in any way.  I personally think that comment was unjustified and I beg you to show me where you are far better qualified then Tom so I have a very valid point to argue it with you. Till that point in time Tom will remain the prominent king of the guru’s here. Jeff
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!