May 2003 - LIS-Forum - ncsi.iisc.ernet.in

A Useful Link
by Mailing List Manager 01 May '03

01 May '03

Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:41:25 +0100 (BST) From: "[iso-8859-1] Saiful Amin" <saifulamin(a)yahoo.com> Hi all, The Berkley Electronic Press (http://www.bepress.com/) publishes a number of peer-reviewed journals on different topics. It also has working papers in different subjects in electronic form as well as some monographs. It also licenses it's scholarly publication services to universities and academic institutions. I hope you'll find this link useful. Regards, Saiful Amin Learning Resource Centre Indian School of Business Gachibowli Hyderabad - 500 019 Ph. +91-40-23187999 http://purl.org/net/saiful

1 0

Fulbright Fellowships for 2004-2005
by Sreekumar 01 May '03

01 May '03

Dear Colleagues: The Fulbright Fellowships for the academic year 2004-2005 were recently announced. The fellowship information and application forms are available at "www.fulbright-india.org". The deadlines for request for application and the receipt of applications are July 01 and July 15, 2003 respectively. Thanks and with best wishes, M G Sreekumar Librarian & Head, Center for Development of Digital Libraries (CDDL) Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode Kunnamangalam P.O Kozhikode, Kerala, India-673 571 ----------------------------------------- Phone : +91 495 2803001/2 Ext. 140 Fax : +91 495 2803010/11 Email : mgsree(a)iimk.ac.in =========================================

1 0

REPORT: Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Reer (fwd)
by Shyam Prasad pujar 01 May '03

01 May '03

Dear Members, It could be of interest to you. Regards, S.M. Pujar Assistant Librarian IGIDR, Mumbai *********************************************************** Little Evidence for Effectiveness of Scientific Peer Review by Caroline White / BMJ 2003;326:241 ( 1 February ) [http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7383/241/a ] DateLine: London Despite its widespread use and costs, little hard evidence exists that peer review improves the quality of published biomedical research, concludes a systematic review from the international Cochrane Collaboration. [ http://bmj.com/cgi/reprint/326/7383/241/a.pdf ] Yet the system, which has been used for at least 200 years, has only recently come under scrutiny, with its assumptions about fairness and objectivity rarely tested, say the review authors. With few exceptions, journal editors�and clinicians�around the world continue to see it as the hallmark of serious scientific endeavour. Published last week, the review is the third in a series from the Cochrane Collaboration Methods Group. .. Only the latter escapes a drubbing, with the reviewers concluding that technical editing does improve the readability, accuracy, and overall quality of published research.The Cochrane reviewers based their findings on 21 studies of the peer review process from an original trawl of only 135. [snip] On the basis of the current evidence, �the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts,� state the authors, who call forlarge, government funded research programmes to test the effectiveness of the system and investigate possible alternatives. �As the information revolution gathers pace, an empirically proven method of quality assurance is of paramount importance,� they contend. Professor Tom Jefferson, who led the Cochrane review, suggested that further research might prove that peer review, or an evolved form of it, worked. At the very least, it needed to be more open and accountable. But he said that there had never even been any consensus on its aims and that it would be more appropriate to refer to it as �competitive review.� [snip] REPORT FULL-TEXT AVAILABLE Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies [ http://www.update-software.com/Cochrane/MR000016.pdf ] Jefferson TO, Alderson P, Davidoff F, Wager E This is a reprint of a Cochrane methodology review, prepared and maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2003, Issue 1

1 0