01:49 Sep-17-2004 Wolfgang Bisle R & D, Project leader & Group Leader InService Inspect. Airbus Deutschland GmbH, Germany, Joined Jul 2000 35
How to publish and how a publisher should work....
Recently I heard a discussion that NDT.net was blamed to accept every paper. The guy complaining (a professor from an university) was upset, that in contrast to well reputated scientiffic publications, where several so called "experts" review all incomming papers and decide wether to publish or not or even with corrections suggested by the "expert" here in NDT.net everything is published and so the value of this platform is not very high.
I would like to ask you to state your oppinion.
Let me add my very personal provocative oppinion: It is nice that the World Wide Web is so democratic, that even a student can make up his scientiffic homepage and tell about his favorite work. And it is of coarse important for me, that there is no long filter process in between, when people publish here in NDT.net except the editor, and it seems that he his more or less take everything which fits in to his field of interest: NDT.
Why I am opting for no reviews: Reviews do definitely not guarantee quality. (look into scientific publications how much garbage you will find, lot's of redundand stuff, only because the author knows well the editor and the reviewers and their preferences) Look how much you find more or less the same article everywhere. Why? Scientist have not to prove a value on a real market but are only reputated according to the number of published papers. Look in how many cases the content of these well reviewed papers turn into something which becomes usefull in the real world of NDT. It is very poor. Only if you work on a product for the market - where especially we NDT-people have to guarantee for safety of lifes, you do a job with responsabilities. Papers - if they are garbage - you can throw into trash and nobody is hurt. So my conclusion: If you belong to the club, you are allowed to do everything. If you aren't, you are out. But no guarantee for quality. Only delays. My question then: Why shall someone domineer over me?
So why not publishing all without reviewers? (evenyou cannot hinder people to put something onto their own homepage) Today here in NDT.net you find all things under one address and with a good search function. It is attractive to publish here. And then - as a reader - you can decide yourself. And if something does not fit your ideas, you have the chance to start a discussion in the forum. Perfect.
Sometimes I feel a littl anoyed about what people ask in the Forum. They don't bother to precise what they really want and post lousy questions. But: It is their right to post any questions, and if these questions are stupid they get what fits: garbage in, garbage out....so what. Beeing and behaving tolerant is the best...
Re: How to publish and how a publisher should work.... I concur with the other comments on this thread. Reviewed journals are an academic requirement, and my personal view is that the academic standards (or possibly only the standard of reviewed papers) are slipping due to this forced requirement.
On the other hand reviewed journals are indispensable for pear review since the author is usually so familiar with his chosen topic that his paper may be hard for others to follow. With the review process the shortcuts are filled in, and the terminology may be adapted for broader appeal.
From my experience however, reviewers are more interested in a list of references than the content, especially when completely new work is being presented.
I would always prefer a reviewed journal over any other, and I believe that the informal review process available on NDT.net is superb, with excellent feedback from other readers, which both stimulate further thought as well as in giving the benefit of the experience of others across the globe within just a few days (versus 8 months for an accredited journal).
Thank you NDT.net, your journal is one of the best available. I hope the academic institutions will agree on this in the near future.