> grant bodies and governments judge scientists by approval of journals
so this is the lynchpin - how is it that such judgement is reliant on the journals, when it is peer review that gives papers their credibility?
Therefore, shouldn't the peer review system be the judge of quality? Which means by exposing more peer review and making it way more open and participatory, the gov't will no longer need to rely on reputation in journals to judge grants or progress?
The first step for acceptance is the journal editor - in lower tier journals, that's an unpaid Professor, in higher tiers it's a paid staff member (usually academic background too) - who decides whether the journal thinks this paper is a good fit or not. Most papers die there, too low impact, too niche outcomes, not enough wide readership etc.
If it has passed the editor it goes to peer reviewers, unpaid academics, who make similar decisions; is it technically sound? Is it impactful?
Impact is measured by the number of citations this paper will have, a bit of an educated guess. A paper on an obscure seagrasses will have few citations, a paper on a novel cancer-defeating mechanism will have many.
High impact factor journals are selective in which papers they accept (via editors and journals) to keep up the high impact factor. That double-gated decision is what turned into a stamp of approval; it's the journal's brand which is the lynchpin for the academics' career, not the peer review
so this is the lynchpin - how is it that such judgement is reliant on the journals, when it is peer review that gives papers their credibility?
Therefore, shouldn't the peer review system be the judge of quality? Which means by exposing more peer review and making it way more open and participatory, the gov't will no longer need to rely on reputation in journals to judge grants or progress?